not accurate for usa [NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT ACCURATE FOR YEAR] APKWS on viper

[Oceandar]

I don't mind more option in DCS as long as its technically (not sure if its correct word) possible. Could be good for gameplay purpose. DCS is still a game anyway.

So adding APKWS to Viper or even Hornet has my support. Come on ED, please make it happen.

[=4c=Nikola]

It isn't historically accurate at all, the F-16C flying with APKWS are not the same F-16Cs we have in DCS, their avionics has some significant differences, whether these avionics updates facilitate APKWS or not is totally irrelevant, because in any case a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, isn't the same aircraft as a 2016+ USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, there are significant differences in the avionics, that's exactly the problem - why is it so difficult?

 

The fact we are flying 2010s aircraft on a 1980s map kinda invalidates your timeline arguments. I'm sure many scientists would like to know more about DCS time-machine allowing airframes to travel back through time. That's Nobel price guaranteed.

[BuzzU]

 

The fact we are flying 2010s aircraft on a 1980s map kinda invalidates your timeline arguments. I'm sure many scientists would like to know more about DCS time-machine allowing airframes to travel back through time. That's Nobel price guaranteed.

 

Does a map change that much between 1980 and 2010? What you can't do is fly a map that's in the future.

 

 

[=4c=Nikola]

 

Does a map change that much between 1980 and 2010? What you can't do is fly a map that's in the future.

 

 

It does. You can fly older airframe on newer map, but you should not be able to fly newer aircraft on older map. That's some serious bending of physics laws.

[BuzzU]

 

It does. You can fly older airframe on newer map, but you should not be able to fly newer aircraft on older map. That's some serious bending of physics laws.

 

How would you fly on an airfield that wasn't built yet? However, you can use an old airfield. You can't fly on a map in the future. Just like you can't use a weapon on a plane that hasn't used it yet.

 

Just like you can't use something in the future. You can't change the past.

[=4c=Nikola]

 

How would you fly on an airfield that wasn't built yet? However, you can use an old airfield. You can't fly on a map in the future. Just like you can't use a weapon on a plane that hasn't used it yet.

 

Just like you can't use something in the future. You can't change the past.

 

-You would need time machine to move aircraft from year 2007 to year 1985 to be able to use it, and time machine do not exist so it's not realistic.

 

-You would not need time machine to move aircraft from year 2007 to year 2016. It would be enough to wait 9 years and it will arrive itself. And in meantime, an airport might be constructed.

 

[Northstar98]

Everybody (mostly) loves the realism in DCS but when realism doesn't fit with what they want. Suddenly, it's not important anymore.

 

I mean for me, I'd love to be able to pick say, 1980 and have comprehensive assets to fit that mission. Seeing as I don't and my options are limited, I have to make a compromise. I either make a compromise, or I don't make the mission - that's it. If there were assets that fit, this simply would be a complete non-issue, it's identical on the A-10C - we have 1 variant that doesn't fit in the timeframe of APKWS and one with, you pick the variant to suit the time. But for vast majority of other modules, that isn't available.

 

Due to the lack of era consistency between assets, maps and modules, if I want to make a peer-to-peer mission, with assets that are consistent with the era, I have very few options: I either don't do it at all, or I try and approximate what I can, even if it means taking some liberties.

 

Neither is an ideal option for me, the ideal option would be to have assets and modules that are consistent. The majority of assets that aren't modules and aren't WWII are mid-to-late Cold War, but much of BLUFOR is post 2000s meanwhile REDFOR is essentially stuck in the 80s. The only era so far with the most flushed out combination of modules, assets and maps is WWII...

 

But anyway, back to my point, if ED are stating that the F-16C should be this specific aircraft, and ED are saying that it should be authentic, then it should authentically represent that aircraft. As said before, DCS suffers a consistency problem as it is when it comes to eras, the last thing that needs to happen is to apply the same inconsistency to the aircraft as well. I mean, at that point, what is the point?

 

...DCS is still a game anyway...

 

Unfortunately, the version that the DCS F-16C, never saw APKWS, and when APKWS existed, the F-16 Block 50 had been undergone potentially 2 rounds of avionics updates, some fairly significant. These upgrades facilitated the use of more more modern weapons like the AGM-158 JASSM, GBU-39 SDB, as well as things like the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II. If we're going to get an F-16C that's now representative of a 2016 variant (which is when APKWS was fielded going by what Fri13 said), by implementing a new weapon onto it, why is everything else going to be left as a 2007 F-16C? It isn't consistent.

 

As for DCS being just a game, true, but it's a game that's whole focus is around realistically simulating aircraft... If people have a problem with DCS accurately modelling specific variants of aircraft, then maybe DCS isn't the right place, as that's kinda the whole point of it.

 

 

The fact we are flying 2010s aircraft on a 1980s map kinda invalidates your timeline arguments.

 

How exactly?

 

And these are not my arguments either, are don't know how many times it needs to be said.

 

Look when it comes down to it this is the single thing that's relevant.

 

Is DCS's mission goal supposed to be "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

Is the F-16C we have, supposed to be a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50?

 

If yes, should it represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 and represent the capabilities of one?

 

If yes, then you agree with me, simple as. That's it, there's really not much else to it...

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

 

-You would need time machine to move aircraft from year 2007 to year 1985 to be able to use it, and time machine do not exist so it's not realistic.

 

True, though the overwhelming majority of assets are mid-to-late Cold War, it's only BLUFOR modules and a few select others that aren't. If I want to keep a mission peer to peer, and era consistent, I either make a mission with barely any modules in it, or I don't do it at all. If I want to make a mission like this, my only real option to try and approximate an older aircraft, fortunately I can do that, without changing what our F-16 represents, you on the other hand, do.

 

If I want to make a 2007 mission, then I've got no choice than to make it asymmetrical i.e not peer-to-peer - my only choice is to fight a force ~20 years out of date at least.

 

Turning off the D/L, removing JHMCS, limiting to AIM-9s, dumb bombs, rockets and LGBs, all of those things don't change our F-16C into any other variant at all. And without historical variants, I don't have much of a choice.

 

If I had historical variants, and if we had other 2007 assets, none of this would be a problem whatsoever.

 

-You would not need time machine to move aircraft from year 2007 to year 2016. It would be enough to wait 9 years and it will arrive itself. And in meantime, an airport might be constructed.

 

Only the F-16C would arrive with shiny new avionics (that ours doesn't) and even shinier weapons, ours won't and it's been said many times that it won't. DCS has a consistency problem as it is, and if I want to keep things peer to peer and consistent for a particular decade, then this is a problem. I don't get why we now want our aircraft to be inconsistent too...

 

[=4c=Nikola]

How exactly?

 

And these are not my arguments either, are don't know how many times it needs to be said.

 

Look when it comes down to it this is the single thing that's relevant.

 

Is DCS's mission goal supposed to be "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

Is the F-16C we have, supposed to be a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50?

 

If yes, should it represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 and represent the capabilities of one?

 

If yes, then you agree with me, simple as. That's it, there's really not much else to it...

 

 

 

Easily:

 

Is the F-16C we have, supposed to be a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50?

 

If yes, should it exist in 1980s realm?

 

If yes, then you disagree with you. :D

[Jackjack171]

Everybody (mostly) loves the realism in DCS but when realism doesn't fit with what they want. Suddenly, it's not important anymore.

 

That's the most truest statement on here.

[Northstar98]

 

Easily:

 

Is the F-16C we have, supposed to be a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50?

 

If yes, should it exist in 1980s realm?

 

If yes, then you disagree with you. :D

 

Welp, sure am glad to see that I don't disagree with myself then.

[silverdevil]

Yikes. Sorry I asked.

[Xavven]

Yikes. Sorry I asked.

 

5 demerits for silverdevil! Bad!

 

Anyway, it's obvious neither side is going to convince the other at this point. I think it's clear there are two camps: one that wants a 2007 Viper locked to that time and one that wants more flexibility to put that Viper in the year 2020. IMHO the A-10C II is the best thing that's happened to DCS this year mainly because of the APKWS (HMCS is awesome too though). Maybe ED could be on notice that there is a desire to add a 2016 Viper as well and add it to the aircraft dropdown. It could still be a Blk 50 but just be one from 2016. Hell, charge $5 for it for all I care. I'd pay it.

[Northstar98]

Anyway, it's obvious neither side is going to convince the other at this point. I think it's clear there are two camps: one that wants a 2007 Viper locked to that time and one that wants more flexibility to put that Viper in the year 2020. IMHO the A-10C II is the best thing that's happened to DCS this year mainly because of the APKWS (HMCS is awesome too though). Maybe ED could be on notice that there is a desire to add a 2016 Viper as well and add it to the aircraft dropdown. It could still be a Blk 50 but just be one from 2016. Hell, charge $5 for it for all I care. I'd pay it.

 

It's really not about locking mission dates in the editor, it's simply a question of whether or not the F-16C we have, should be the F-16C it's intended to be, or not. ED have stated, it's supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, circa 2007, so, IMO, it should represent a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50.

 

And variants are easily the perfect solution, by miles - definitely agree with you there, it is the best solution bar none.

 

As for a 2016 USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50; it would also probably receive 2 major iterations of software upgrades, allowing for the AGM-158 JASSM, GBU-39 SDB, AIM-120D (with expanded D/L capability), AIM-9X Block II, as well as APKWS, GBU-54 and EGBU-12. You'd also get an ARC-210 instead of whatever COMM2 radio set we currently get, maybe even TFR and AGCAS too.

[=4c=Nikola]

I'm in third camp: "I don't really care".

 

I'm just amused with how inconsistently people apply logic to rationalize their wishes. Some of them regularly fly 2007 F-16 on 1980s Caucasus map, park Nimitz class carrier in Black Sea, use unrealistic TDC option for F-18, fly overweight, land overweight, over-stress airframe like every flight, rearm+refuel+repair in 3 minutes, but then cry on forums how attaching X weapon on Y aircraft is unrealistic. :laugh:

 

And really, it's fine, everyone has its own perception what a simulator should do and its own way to use it. There's no right or wrong with sandbox games.

[Snake122]

 

5 demerits for silverdevil! Bad!

 

Anyway, it's obvious neither side is going to convince the other at this point. I think it's clear there are two camps: one that wants a 2007 Viper locked to that time and one that wants more flexibility to put that Viper in the year 2020. IMHO the A-10C II is the best thing that's happened to DCS this year mainly because of the APKWS (HMCS is awesome too though). Maybe ED could be on notice that there is a desire to add a 2016 Viper as well and add it to the aircraft dropdown. It could still be a Blk 50 but just be one from 2016. Hell, charge $5 for it for all I care. I'd pay it.

 

A-10C II happened because USAF units wanted to use it for training. To get a more updated Viper than 2007, ED would probably need USAF F-16 unit with a similar agreement. And then I agree, I would pay my money if comparable amount for a Viper II with 2020ish capabilities.

 

If you are making a study sim, you don't get to peek behind the certain on the newer stuff without a blessing like that. Sure ED could attempt add some of the things listed like AGM-158 without that, but there would be more guessing than what should be for a study level sim. Not touching APKWS debate this time, just telling you guys probably how ED is looking at it.

[Jackjack171]

I'm in third camp: "I don't really care".

 

I'm just amused with how inconsistently people apply logic to rationalize their wishes. Some of them regularly fly 2007 F-16 on 1980s Caucasus map, park Nimitz class carrier in Black Sea, use unrealistic TDC option for F-18, fly overweight, land overweight, over-stress airframe like every flight, rearm+refuel+repair in 3 minutes, but then cry on forums how attaching X weapon on Y aircraft is unrealistic. :laugh:

 

And really, it's fine, everyone has its own perception what a simulator should do and its own way to use it. There's no right or wrong with sandbox games.

 

Very well said! At some point, it all becomes ridiculous. I think that we should all leave it up to ED to decide how that goes. These debates are wild! I'd just hate for this to turn into an arcade game where I have 70 missiles and a very cheesy storyline.

[Fri13]

You completely miss the whole point that APKWS II does not require (or use, benefit etc) any software or hardware modifications at all!

 

Totally irrelevant!

 

You say that it is "Totally Irrelevant" what are weapon technical specifications and capabilities to be operational in a airframe.

Says that you have no arguments whatsoever.

 

Here are the arguments:

"...we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

"...We are making the DCS: F-16CM Block 50, and whatever should come with it used by USAF and ANG, circa 2007."

 

Get it yet?

 

Seems that you do not get the point. Any F-16 is capable to carry and launch APKWS II rockets. F-16C Blk 50 carrying APKWS II rockets since 2016 does not make it by any means "Frankenstein's Monster" that you quote continually!

 

What they mean is that as there are N+1^2 different F-16's, that they are not going to add some unique special weapon that was added to only few of them. Or that they are not going to model the cockpit based other variants there are as one airbase can have dozens of F-16C Blk 50 fighters and none of them will look identical from cockpit.

 

But that does not by any means mean that a common, fully backward compatible weapon that any F-16 can carry since the weapon has been taken in the service in 2016, that they are today in reality carrying and operating if the missions so require, will make any F-16 as "Frankenstein".

 

I think I'll stop this here, I'm only repeating myself at this point...

 

Yes, you go around the circles as:

 

1) You do not understand technical facts.

2) You do not understand historical facts.

 

You just want that F-16C Blk 50 will only be operational in the very specific point in time (2007, very specific month even) and it is not allowed to operate with any other unit from any other year. That is your whole argument!

Remember, you quote: "a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time."

So you do not want it to never be simulated that particular aircraft at any other point in time!

 

 

[Fri13]

 

Yes, which is why I would support having GPS in the Bf-109 if DCS were a civil aviation sim. While people do perform airshows in DCS, it's really a military sim. There is no military scenario where the Bf-109 would be employed and have GPS.

 

DCS World is a sandbox, we have even the airshow grows and stands and all kind other things so people can make virtual airshows, for civilian aviation!

Regardless that DCS World is "Digital Combat Simulator", it is far more than just one airframe, one year and one focus. It is heavily focused for the combat aviation, but we do have non-combat aircrafts like Yak-52 or Christen Eagle II. We can even fly Mi-8 as civilian variant for mediheli or UN missions.

 

We already can have NS430 GPS navigator in the WW2 era aircrafts if so wanted, as it is totally realistic that in a airshow in the timeline when NS430 has been available, it would be used as standalone. Sure because this is simulator and sandbox, people can go to fight in 1945 with the NS430 if mission designer so allows. But is it realistic? No. But it is possible.

 

But point is, it is not an logical argument to deny APKWS from F-16C Blk 50 to be used in missions 2016- as it is realistic, by using slippery slope argument that then should WW2 aircrafts has as well GPS systems or F-16C should carry some special weapon that technically wouldn't be possible.

 

 

[Xavven]

I'm just amused with how inconsistently people apply logic to rationalize their wishes. Some of them regularly fly 2007 F-16 on 1980s Caucasus map, park Nimitz class carrier in Black Sea, use unrealistic TDC option for F-18, fly overweight, land overweight, over-stress airframe like every flight, rearm+refuel+repair in 3 minutes, but then cry on forums how attaching X weapon on Y aircraft is unrealistic. :laugh:

 

 

I really feel the same way. To add to your list, DCS lets you spawn F-15s in the air and use the F-10 map to navigate around. You can launch 6 AIM-120s at a group of unknown radar contacts without verifying if they're hostile and fly home without answering to anyone. I don't want Ace Combat either but I realize there's a point at which we can take the realism argument too seriously.

 

 

 

These debates are wild! I'd just hate for this to turn into an arcade game where I have 70 missiles and a very cheesy storyline.

 

You can already have 70 missiles if you enable unlimited ammo in the settings menu. There's also an entire "game mode" in DCS -- in other words, we already have the ability to turn DCS into an arcade game. It's just that most players opt not to.

 

But have you seen how much ED got blasted for allowing the F-16 to carry SIX mavericks? "It's not an operational loadout!" Guess DCS is unpure and we have to burn it to the ground now.

 

 

[silverdevil]

 

5 demerits for silverdevil! Bad!

 

LOL. i know right? i know from experience and research that planes are field modified. for example there is a story i read about f-4 in vietnam used as a FAC where they put gun pods on every pylon. it was completed by field personnel. this type of mod probably did not require software changes. just a switch to power the pods. it does seem to me that a bit of a software change would be need for the guided rockets since they are dependent on something marking it. one would have to tell the rocket what code to use.

[Fri13]

Everybody (mostly) loves the realism in DCS but when realism doesn't fit with what they want. Suddenly, it's not important anymore.

 

Who say that it is not realistic that F-16C Blk 50 that we are modeling (2000 M3/M3+ (or even 2007 M4/M4+?) update) to launch a APKWS II rockets needs to first come out with technical reasons that why it is not capable to do it like all others are.

Then if it is possible without modifications (as it is by the all sources) then they need to come up with explanation, why our F-16C Blk 50 wouldn't be using it 2016- forward?

 

If ED tells what very unique airframe (giving its number) they are modeling, is it logical that if it is tracked and appears it has never been flown outside USA that it would be then excluded from other DCS maps than NTTR? How many wants such realism? As such is already against the definitions of "sandbox" and "simulator".

 

[Fri13]

But have you seen how much ED got blasted for allowing the F-16 to carry SIX mavericks? "It's not an operational loadout!" Guess DCS is unpure and we have to burn it to the ground now.

 

That is a political decision making and it has no place in simulator that should be strictly based to technical facts.

If the F-16C Blk 50 is technically capable to carry and launch six Mavericks, then it is so. That is end of it.

If there is a reason that it is not allowed to launch mavericks from positions of X and Y in peace time as it will destroy its ailerons or horizontal stabilizer etc by lowering the flight hours or just by X amount of launches and it is too expensive, then it is a political reason.

If at the war time comes a situation that the F-16 is required to carry all six Mavericks because enemy is rolling 15 000 tanks over the border, then would such loadout be allowed to stop the enemy by most effective way?

 

There are websites that list realistic weapon loadouts for Hornet, Viper, Warthog etc in various squadrons, operations, fleets etc. And it is amazing that so many loadouts in the DCS are unrealistic.

But does it matter? No, because technical facts are only things that matter; Is the weapon possible be used by the airframe or not? Not politics, not commands, not some officer wishes or anything else than hard technical facts.

 

 

 

 

[BuzzU]

If ED wants to add the APKWS II rockets after the Viper is completely done, that's fine. I just won't install that update.

 

I'll bet you can't wait that long. :)

[Northstar98]

You say that it is "Totally Irrelevant" what are weapon technical specifications and capabilities to be operational in a airframe.

Says that you have no arguments whatsoever.

 

Whatever helps you sleep better.

 

Seems that you do not get the point. Any F-16 is capable to carry and launch APKWS II rockets. F-16C Blk 50 carrying APKWS II rockets since 2016 does not make it by any means "Frankenstein's Monster" that you quote continually!

 

Great, cherry picking quotes now too.

 

What they mean is that as there are N+1^2 different F-16s

 

So N+1 then?

 

That they are not going to add some unique special weapon that was added to only few of them. Or that they are not going to model the cockpit based other variants there are as one airbase can have dozens of F-16C Blk 50 fighters and none of them will look identical from cockpit.

 

???

 

But that does not by any means mean that a common, fully backward compatible weapon that any F-16 can carry since the weapon has been taken in the service in 2016, that they are today in reality carrying and operating if the missions so require, will make any F-16 as "Frankenstein".

 

They said themselves that they (not me) are wanting to do a USAF/ANG F-16C circa 2007, but apparently it's such a great offense that they deliver a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 circa 2007. How dare they.

 

I mean I ordered a computer mouse once, and do you know what arrived? The computer mouse I ordered. I know right, unbelievable, a massive disgrace, how dare they.

 

Yes, you go around the circles as:

 

1) You do not understand technical facts.

2) You do not understand historical facts.

 

 

:music_whistling:

 

You just want that F-16C Blk 50 will only be operational in the very specific point in time (2007, very specific month even) and it is not allowed to operate with any other unit from any other year. That is your whole argument!

 

Well, if you're so confident that I firmly believe this and ED should ban the mission editor and every single mission with the F-16C and that that's my whole argument (how does one fail to miss the point so may times and by so much) then perhaps you'd like to quote me when I expressed that position?

 

Oh wait...

 

Remember, you quote: "a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time."

 

Yes, the quote that must really make your blood boil, I mean it's just so offensive that ED develop an aircraft that's supposed to be a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 and it end up being a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, I know mad right? Who the hell do they think they are?

 

So you do not want it to never be simulated that particular aircraft at any other point in time!

 

If I don't never want it to be simulated at any other point in time, that means I do want it simulated at any other point in time...

 

So which is it? Do I want to ban the mission editor, or don't I care what mission people take the F-16 into? Pick one, they're mutually exclusive.

 

If people want to try and approximate older stuff, they have to work with what they've got. Pain in the bum and not realistic, I know, it's not ideal; but what other choice do you have? It's very awkward with DCS' assets being all over the place and era inconsistent; so you have the vast majority of assets be mid-to-late Cold War, but popular BLUFOR is post 2000s, REDFOR basically stops at the 80s (and then they're simplified) and the most flushed out era by far is WWII. If you want to do these kind of missions, you don't have another option other than to make a compromise.

 

If it wasn't like this, and there were appropriate variants, this problem wouldn't exist in the first place, and that goes both ways absolutely fine and everybody is happy. But again, unfortunately it's not like this and I'm bound by what I can do, and what I can do here isn't much at all.

 

But it is what it is, and unfortunately it probably isn't going to change, at least not for a very long time. So people will have to carry on working with what they've got. Luckily, taking away JHMCS, turning off the D/L and not carrying JDAMs or AMRAAMs is pretty straight forward, requires no input from developers, nor does it change our F-16C into anything else.

 

If you want a 2016 spec F-16C Block 50, then absolutely go for it, but let's keep it consistent. Pick 'n' mixing and having inconsistent assets that aren't comprehensive is the root cause of this whole issue in the first place. I don't think the solution is to make the aircraft inconsistent too.