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

[Deano87]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Studios needs to justify their decisions for everyone. Don't try to make this as personal.

Their reasons are not good. They are moving the goalposts about valid reasoning to include or remove something, when it is approatiate to use a timeline, history, technicality, politics etc. It is done. Without having a firm standard that what should be.

No they don’t.

 

Each module has a specific production scope which is dictated by the information they have about the aircraft and what they feel they can use. This will dictate the spec and the timeframe of the aircraft modelled. We don’t necessarily get to know the reasons behind those limitations and decisions.

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

You don't understand, I have it accepted already from the start.... As only thing that one can hope is that logical discussion is allowed.

It sure doesn’t sound like it, and this isn’t a logical discussion. If ED have given you their statement on the APKWS, Where is the logic in continuing to post about it?

 

Quote

Your status is now clear, that you do not care about technical facts. So just accept it and move on.

No, I’m the exact opposite. The technical facts are that no 2007 USAF/ANG Block 50 F-16C with the tape and other configuration that is being modelled in the sim would ever fire an APKWS. All the currently in service USAF/ANG F-16s wich could use such a weapon are in a different configuration from what’s being modelled. It’s really not that hard to grasp. It’s also the official statement from ED.

 

Your argument boils down to “APKWS would be fun! Why can’t I have it.”

Edited December 28, 2020 by Deano87

[Northstar98]

38 minutes ago, Deano87 said:

No they don’t.

 

Each module has a specific production scope which is dictated by the information they have about the aircraft and what they feel they can use. This will dictate the spec and the timeframe of the aircraft modelled. We don’t necessarily get to know the reasons behind those limitations and decisions.

 

Exactly, we need to limit scope somewhere.

 

AFAIK the 2007 version is simply the latest F-16CM with enough publicly available documentation available and licensing easy enough to get hold of, to get something fully complete. It's not the version I wanted either, but at the end of the day our F-16 is a very fun and capable platform, and I don't want to twist it into being something it's not. I'd rather get the individual variants, if possible. 

 

Quote

It sure doesn’t sound like it, and this isn’t a logical discussion. If ED have given you their statement on the APKWS, Where is the logic in continuing to post about it?

 

Absolutely. Fri13 can go on about 'subject to change' but ultimately, the producer of ED has marked this thread 'not going to happen' twice already, BIGNEWY has chimed in too and the planned features list hasn't changed either. It looks like a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 being anything but a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 is something that isn't going to happen, at least for this module.

 

I mean if logic is what we're going for, and realism is the point of DCS; shouldn't a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 represent a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007? It doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Northstar98

[Deano87]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I mean if logic is what we're going for, and realism is the point of DCS; shouldn't a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 represent a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007? It doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

Hey, now there’s a radical idea! 

[KalAbaddon]

@Fri13 I get you want it to be added, and I even want it my self tbh! add it to the harrier as well!

But that said I think with how much you are forcing the issue and making them say NO so many times,  it will be much harder for them to change their mind later having so forcibly held their ground now....  ( like a stubborn approach.  or just that they will get more flack for changing their minds after repeating so many time they wont. )  

[Deano87]

3 hours ago, KalAbaddon said:

I get you want it to be added, and I even want it my self tbh! add it to the harrier as well!

I would like it too! But as long as and only if its part of a realistic package. If in a few years they did a 2016 (or newer) era Block 50 as a seperate module or an upgrade or something with all the relevent other updates, New Tape, AIM-120D, AIM-9X Block II, SDPs, JASSM etc.. Hell go crazy and fit a CDU screen like some of the ANG jets have. Then I'd be all for it! I enjoy the APKWS. But I don't see the sense of fitting it to an aircraft which is set 10 years prior to the weapon even being available, and wouldn't have the software upgrades for the aircraft to use it.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Deano87

[Smoked]

Its pretty simple actually.   The year our viper was modeled in was 2007.... did APKWS rockets exists then?    No....  Move on...   

 

Yes this is the Wish list area... you might have missed it though.. they (ED) already explained that its not going to happen (check the thread title)... because.... wait for it.... the rockets did not exist in 2007 ..

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Smoked

[Alpiinoo]

APKWS will be good. But was absent in 2007...

[SUBS17]

On 11/16/2020 at 9:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...ads#post242691

 

Short answer, no - the F-16C we have is supposed to represent a mid-2000s aircraft, APKWS is 2012+ so we almost certainly won't be seeing it.

 

It's also the reason why we didn't see AGM-158 JASMM

 

Perhaps like the A-10C II They will someday model a version with the APKWS.

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

 

Perhaps like the A-10C II They will someday model a version with the APKWS.

 

Sure, I'm all for getting different variants, it is easily the best solution. All I ask is they be consistent with it if it's a 2016+ one it would have M6.1+ which includes AIM-9X Block II, AIM-120D, GBU-39, AGM-158, GBU-54 as well as APKWS II. 

[Smoked]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sure, I'm all for getting different variants, it is easily the best solution. 

This right here is the best answer.   Trying to make a jet something it's not (based on users "wants") is too much of a slippery slope, and it takes the "cool" part of DCS away (yes that is subjective to me).  Different variants will give those opportunities to the player and the developer as well. 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Smoked said:

This right here is the best answer.   Trying to make a jet something it's not (based on users "wants") is too much of a slippery slope, and it takes the "cool" part of DCS away (yes that is subjective to me).  Different variants will give those opportunities to the player and the developer as well. 

 

Agreed, plus it's better for historical scenarios. Some variants can be essentially copied and pasted with only a few differences.

 

F-16A Block 15 c. early 80s, for Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising-like scenarios (on say, a Germany Map).

F-16C Block 30 for ODS c. mid-to-late 80s

F-16CG Block 40 for Bosnia/Kosovo c. late 80s/early 90s

F-16CM Block 50 M6.1/6.2+ (we have M4.2/4.3) c. 2012+ for modern day.

[Smoked]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Agreed, plus it's better for historical scenarios. Some variants can be essentially copied and pasted with only a few differences.

 

F-16A Block 15 c. early 80s, for Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising-like scenarios (on say, a Germany Map).

F-16C Block 30 for ODS c. mid-to-late 80s

F-16CG Block 40 for Bosnia/Kosovo c. late 80s/early 90s

F-16CM Block 50 M6.1/6.2+ (we have M4.2/4.3) c. 2012+ for modern day.

Plus ED could "sell" those variants and have another revenue source... 

 

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Smoked said:

Plus ED could "sell" those variants and have another revenue source... 

 

 

Yeah, could do something like the A-10CII. And variants like the Block 40 are basically a copy and paste of our current aircraft. There are very minimal changes that would require lots of work (the most would be LANTIRN and remodelling the HUD with the wide-FOV one).

 

Spoiler

• Identical FDM apart from maybe weight and thrust (F110-GE-100 in the 40 has about 5kN less wet-thrust than on our one)
• Basically identical avionics, including the RADAR; all displays are identical apart from the wide-angle HUD (which has identical symbology), just no data-link/MIDS.
• Identical external model, save for cockpit differences (different HUD and JHMCS sensor removed).
• Near identical cockpit, though some switches might be in a slightly different place (if any at all), just no JHMCS brightness knob, no MIDS/Link 16.
• Weapons already complete as is (apart from HARM modes + HTS and ECM and maybe JDAM), if we were to go strict about the year, it wouldn't have JSOW, AIM-9X, AIM-120B/C (though maybe AIM-120A - a model of which already exists in DCS).
• The main difference would be the integration of LANTIRN (basically the same AAQ-14 TGP as on the Tomcat (well, apart from the one on the Tomcat has its own INS + ballistic computer + coordinate generation capability AFAIK) and the AAQ-13 which includes navigation FLIR and an autopilot coupled TFR).
• The only other difference is the wide-FOV HUD, which can display IR imagery on the HUD but otherwise has identical symbology, including EEGS.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

On 12/30/2020 at 8:38 PM, Desert Fox said:

But... but.... if you put a Viper into a warehouse in 2007 and sealed it... and... and... unsealed it in 2020... then... then you could... for sure 

But but, you fly 2007 Viper with 2005 Hornet, with a 2016 Warthog, against a 1982 Flanker.... In world that is populated with SAM systems from 60-70's

 

 

Sure...

 

Go ahead.... Mock me more. But you just can't counter the argument that Viper is 100% capable use APKWS II rockets as is without any modifications no matter what block, tape or variant you would use in 2016 and forward....

 

 

[Fri13]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sure, I'm all for getting different variants, it is easily the best solution. All I ask is they be consistent with it if it's a 2016+ one it would have M6.1+ which includes AIM-9X Block II, AIM-120D, GBU-39, AGM-158, GBU-54 as well as APKWS II. 

 

APKWS II doesn't require any changes to be usable in 2016+. All those other weapons does.

 

That is not so difficult thing to understand.

 

Neither is that DCS is a sandbox with capability (and purpose) to create fictional missions and scenarios that are played.

 

What is, and should be only limiting factor?

Politics? No.

Historical accuracy of events? No.

Technical facts? Yes.

 

ED says that F-16C can't use weapon that is compatible with it (and used), because it didn't come to inventory than 9 years later.

 

Same time ED developed weapon and integrated it to F/A-18C, regardless it was removed from service and inventory 10 years earlier. 

 

And that is their argument with timeline here.

 

If someone would not like to use it, then don't. If someone doesnt want to use it earlier dated missions than 2016, then don't.

If someone wants to use it, they can - it is up to them decide do they follow timeline that 2016 it came to operational use, or do they skip timeline and use it any dates mission.

 

 

[Fri13]

On 12/28/2020 at 3:56 PM, Northstar98 said:

Absolutely. Fri13 can go on about 'subject to change' but ultimately, the producer of ED has marked this thread 'not going to happen' twice already, BIGNEWY has chimed in too and the planned features list hasn't changed either. It looks like a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 being anything but a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007 is something that isn't going to happen, at least for this module.

 

Now you are twisting my words.

 

No where I have claimed F-16CM Blk 50 c.2007 to become ANYTHING ELSE than it already is.

 

Nor have I want it to become anything else.

 

Only thing that I asked was that ED does consider adding weapons to it that it is capable use in 2016 and forward.

 

You can run around about the timelines, but that is just a invalid argument.

Even ED breaks that argument because they want to.  They even add unrealistic technical capabilities because they want to.

 

But when they could add a weapon that is realistic, technically compatible, and already available in DCS, they do not want to. And their reasoning for not want to do so goes against their reasoning in their own other module.

 

This is not about wanting a AIM-120D or any weapon that requires updated tapes or hardware modifications etc. As that would be clear NO POSSIBLE.

 

 

And it is not so difficult to read my posts earlier that I have already accepted the ED position. So don't try to twist that either.

 

But their argument why not, is still invalid here and they need to honor it in future as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

I can't, it's an inconsistency, though the avionics absolutely natively supports it, so there's that.

 

Do it support?

 

APKWS II is absolutely supported by our Viper, Hornet and by anything that can launch standard 70 mm Hydra rockets. There are two variants of that rocket for helicopters and for fixed wing aircraft.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

If ED are going to be consistent with the rules, they should do it across the board, for all modules, 3rd parties should probably follow suite as well. Which means that the Walleye probably shouldn't be present, along with SLAM and maybe even the Litening II.

 

Yes, that is one of the points. But they should as well be more accurate with the rules.

 

Is the politics that rules what should be simulated (the authority that approve funding, decides the weapon loadout, decides the war where unit is sent)?

Is the history that rules what should be simulated (Are the liveries historically accurate, are the weapon loadouts historically accurate, are the places where the aircraft is flown historically accurate etc)?

Is the technology that rules what should be simulated (if the X is technically possible)?

 

This is again just one of the topics that are vulnerable for double standards from the developers. Like AGM-65D was removed from the Hornet, even when it is technically compatible with it, only because political reasons it was not used by the USN. Same way many can go and see that the Hornet in various countries didn't have example Maverick at all as USA politics didn't allow weapon to be exported to those countries regardless it is exact same Hornet, and yet in DCS we have those countries.

 

 

 

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

My guess was these weapons were implemented as interims as their integration is simpler and can therefore be used as a stepping stone for the proper stores such as SLAM-ER and ATFLIR, which still aren't ready yet.

 

How difficult you think that it is for Viper team to implement the APKWS II to it, when already A-10C II brought it to the DCS World? The OH-58 Kiowa Warrior is going to use it as well and so on the weapon exist already in the DCS weapon library and mainly all that developers need to do is to add it to official loadout, similar manner as the modders does add example Mavericks or Hellfires to KA-50 etc. Modders just don't have the access to SDK so they can't create a new weapons or new guidance logic and such, but they can move things around with some limits.

 

Like how difficult it would be to add it to Viper loadouts and be officially available only in missions dated 2016 (default in editor) or newer, and if designer disables time era filter then it would come visible like any other weapon for the date of mission? Like we already have F-15C that is modeled more as a 87-88 variant, but it uses AIM-120C5 from 2000-. How many F-15C fan would go crazy if the C version would be removed, or actually whole AIM-120 line would be removed? While many things would be added, some major capabilities would be removed if it would be transformed to full fidelity module, or applied even same rules as now.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

But just because one thing is unrealistic shouldn't mean everything else must necessarily be made unrealistic too. DCS should be striving to be as realistic as possible, it's never going to get there 100% but that should be the goal and IMO developers shouldn't be going out of their way to oppose that, as it is the whole point of DCS.

 

Yes, and that is the point of the APKWS II for the Viper, Hornet etc. It is 100% realistic to have in 2016 as it is backward compatible. It can not be argued that same should apply to AIM-9X Block II or AIM-120D etc, because those weapons requires changes, but APKWS II doesn't.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

Please explain to me why the DSMS for the A-10C has a dedicated profile for it?

 

So that pilot know what weapon is loaded?

It is not required feature to use the weapon.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

APKWS II most likely has different ballistics compared to regular Hydra 70s, it weighs more, and presumably has more drag, so it needs a dedicated profile for the weapons computer to calculate an impact point.

 

You know that is a completely moot point. Because we are talking about conversion of unguided rockets to laser guided rockets. You do not need anymore even accurate impact point aimpoint because it is irrelevant to laser guided designation. None of the sources I have found to say that the kinematic flight profile has changed. Even when it gets more weight and drag, the wings corrects that. And even when you can use those rockets without laser designation as they would be unguided ones, you are totally wasting them. It is like using a GBU-12 as Mk.82. Technically you can, but you really shouldn't.

 

And in the tests the APKWS II has shown that it flies longer than unguided version, because it has the wings. It generates more lift and flies as far as the rocket motor makes it, it is rocket motor limited weapon for the range, as in the tests the seeker has even hit targets past 14 km. And as it is modular conversion addition that has no connection to launcher, you can create new rocket motor that makes it fly even further than current ones.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

In exactly the same fashion as selecting between the PGU or M50 rounds on the Hornet, both are fully compatible with any M61 (even those from much earlier), but whatever is calculating the ballistics needs to know which, and when the PGU series came to the Hornet, presumably the ability to select which one, came with a software package (even if very minor) to integrate those rounds.

 

The rounds were always completely compatible with no changes to the gun system, but to integrate them properly - that required a software update (even a teeny tiny one). 

 

You are talking about ballistic weapons, unguided ones, not about unguided > guided conversion that increase precision, capability hit moving targets, longer engagement ranges etc.

Just already understand what even manufacturer says that there is nothing to be changed because weapon requires it.

 

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

According to that unclassified document, there's a major software iteration every 3 years, which fundamentally changes the capabilities of the aircraft.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/AirForce/stamped/0207133F_7_PB_2012.pdf

 

"Blk 40-52 OFP (M-tapes) are updated continually to integrate new precision weapons, advanced targeting pods, improved avionics and other HW Group B subsystems. Major tapes (e.g., M5/5+) are released every three years and a minor tape (e.g., M5.2+) is released 1 year after each major tape."

 

It's been years since these tapes came out.

 

Doesn't matter. Our Viper is 100% compatible with the APKWS II. And it is known that new software versions are developed in those 3 years, it isn't that aircrafts gets updated to it. It costs money and only specific sets gets updated. It is not like a "New Updates available, do you want to download and install now?" but it is just development process. Like the latest version of tape was funded only for 300 something from 700. The others were left to the future if needed. And those 300 are updated in coming years, not on one year.

That is why it is required to know what specific airframes are updated and not, but it is still irrelevant as no software updates are required to add the compatibility for APKWS II.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

We have M4.2/4.3 (the difference is insignificant).

M5.1 came in 2008 (which is probably what we should've gone for with a modern F-16C, if possible)

M6.1 came in 2011

 

We should have M5.2 as we have features that came with it AFAIK.

But it doesn't matter as we do not know has all been updated or not, and still irrelevant as none of those updates brought or denied the APKWS II compatibility and capability.

Just already understand, software updates are irrelevant for APKWS II. Why it is irrelevant argument that software updates are needed or they change something or it is not same.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

How about you give me evidence of a Block 50 with our software suite, still being around today, that is APKWS II equipped with no other updates, seeing as you're the one making that claim.

 

Already provided it is 100% compatible. Your job is to provide evidence that counters the official data and information and technical facts.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

Again, explain to me why the A-10C DSMS has a dedicated profile for it? Answer, because the weapons computer needs a quick patch to integrate APKWS II rockets, so it can calculate where to put the pipper, as APKWS II rockets have slightly different ballistics, same thing as all the different warhead types of existing Hydra 70 rockets on the A-10C, they have slightly different ballistics.

 

False.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

I said before with the Hornet selecting between PGU and M50 gun rounds - both rounds can be fired by the gun no problem (same for any M61 platform) but the weapons computer needs to know which in order to provide a proper solution. 

 

False, you are talking about different weapon requirements. Not APKWS II compatibility.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

Brilliant, some unknown person said a thing that means that our F-16CM is now unique for a completely unspecified squadron and unspecified airbase and it's unrealistic to have it operate out of anything but that unspecified airbase and part of that unspecified squadron; we're literally ghost hunting here. 

 

False. It didn't talk about our specific aircraft, but just about his airbase. You can go search that member from this forum if you want. He was confirmed anyways here. But if you do not get the point, F-16CM Blk 50 is not like a factory product that all units are same. That is why it is super easy to make a "frankenstain".

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

Let's hope it's for the 64th Aggressor Squadron out of Nellis AFB then! Seeing as no other airbase basing our F-16C (at least for the liveries we have) is present in DCS at all, nor does any map we have currently go anywhere near them, so not sure what the relevancy is here - It's simply supposed to represent a specific aircraft of a specific operator with the capabilities of said variant at a particular point in time. Basically a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 with the M4.2/4.3 software tape. Nice and simple. 

 

And that is 100% compatible with APKWS II. As is. No updates required to use that rocket. Only requirement should be that mission is dated to 2016+ if wanted to be more realistic with the timeline.

 

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

Again, why does the A-10C have a dedicated DSMS profile for it then?

 

Already explained.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

And the F-16Cs employing APKWS II have a lot of avionics changes, changing their capabilities significantly - they are different aircraft. You say that there are APKWS II equipped, M4.3 F-16CM Block 50s around in 2016 with the USAF/ANG, so off you go and find one then.

 

Please provide evidence to counter official information, documentation and technical data that APKWS II requires software modifications.

Stage is yours. I don't need to counter those as I am not arguing against official information.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

At the end of the day, you want a 2007 F-16CM Block 50 (that is for all intents and purposes, literally, a 2007 F-16CM Block 50), but upgraded to be a 2016+ F-16C;

 

No. You want it to be upgraded to 2016+ version, not me. I want to keep it as is, but it is allowed to be used in any mission dated newer than 2007, like the mission editor default 2016.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

 though still fundamentally being a 2007 F-16C, with all of its capabilities, and none of the capabilities of the 2016, M6.1+ spec one (such as AGM-158, GBU-39, GBU-54, AIM-9X Block II etc),apart from a single, cherry picked weapons system. It's a straight up Frankenstein hybrid of aircraft variants, combining capabilities of different variants from different times (very nearly a decade) - something that ED have expressed very clearly they have no intention of doing, and have every intention of doing a particular Block 50 variant, with the specifications of one as it was at a particular point in time - none of those 2 points include APKWS II, not only did it not exist (and didn't on any F-16C for nearly a decade), but the aircraft that are fitted with APKWS II are different aircraft variants from the one we have (M6.1+ as opposed to M4.2/4.3).

 

Lies.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

I don't care what mission you make, as in I don't care what task, theatre, date, time, what coalitions and countries are present and what units are present - you do with the aircraft what you want - not sure what you meant by agreeing with you, unless you're trying to put words in my mouth.

 

You put words to my mouth. But you still agree with me that politics, history etc should be irrelevant factor and only 100% technical capabilities should be the goal.

Let me quote your own words:

 

"DCS should be striving to be as realistic as possible, it's never going to get there 100% but that should be the goal and IMO developers shouldn't be going out of their way to oppose that, as it is the whole point of DCS. "

 

They literally have gone oppose the 100% reality that should be the goal, and in your own words, you agree with me and the OP about APKWS II for F-16CM Blk 50 (with what ever tape version) when mission is dated 2016+.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

The sandbox part of DCS doesn't change aircraft based on the date; and historical mode only filters based on introduction date alone, it doesn't care about when an aircraft went out of service, nor does it currently factor what stores were around etc.

 

So our Viper could use APKWS II in 2016+ missions, thank you again agreeing.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

It also doesn't change the configuration of the map, though ED seems to be interested in implementing something similar (at least in the case of the Marianas map). If DCS did configure everything as it was for the time, this wouldn't be a problem. Set the date to 2016+ and you get a 2016 spec F-16CM Block 50 with M6+ software, with all the weapons commonly wished for, including APKWS II. 

 

That is irrelevant argument. You are now requiring that studios would model every single aircraft like they would be udated from X to Z year.

You are trying to use the arguments that APKWS II requires software updates. Please provide evidence for that.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 2:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

You on the other hand want to take an aircraft that's supposed to represent a 2007 version be a 2016+ version, with none of the 2016s capabilities besides a single weapon system. So not only are the eras, maps and assets all over the place, now the individual aircraft are too, being a hybrid combining capabilities of different versions.

 

That is a lie and you know it.

 

Here is the huge difference that you purposely try to twist.

 

You write: "You on the other hand want to take an aircraft that's supposed to represent a 2007 version be a 2016+ version"

I write: "Our viper is available for missions dated 2016+ where our Viper is still flying as is right now, and it is still capable use APKWS II without any software updates".

 

You are trying to twist my argument to be that ED should modify the Viper for something else than it is not. That is a lie.

You just don't understand that the Viper would not need any single change to be able use APKWS II as it is designed to be so.

It is not a ballistic bullet like you try to argue.

It is not a AIM-120D like you try to argue.

It is not about anything as you try to argue.

It is very unique 100% backward compatible plug'n'play weapon conversion kit.

 

It requires training for the ground crew to perform conversion, settings and loadout etc. And pilot know how to utilize already known laser designation system with the already known rockets. So pilot needs to know that he has AGR-20 loaded up, that laser code was set by the ground crew as XXXX and remember to utilize that information when launching rockets that target needs to be designated after launch with proper laser code.

 

You can already try that with example Hornet already or any aircraft. Just pretend that your rocket pods are loaded with AGR-20 rockets and remember to have target designated with laser after launch with proper laser.

[BIGNEWY]

Appreciate you are passionate about this Fri13, but the answer has not changed, we will not be adding APKWS to the viper.

 

thanks

[Northstar98]

I take it we're now just in the realm of gish-galloping Fri? Bloody hell, I know I write long posts but this is really pushing it.

 

I think I'm going to stop after this, we've surpassed ridiculous long back, you had it answered so many times, only for you to stick your fingers in your ears.

 

And how you say "I've already accepted ED's position" and even "I've accepted it from the start" While continuing to go on a crusade against it, and call the arguments why illogical and invalid; I mean it makes so much sense.

 

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

APKWS II doesn't require any changes to be usable in 2016+. All those other weapons does.

 

Neither do the Hornet's gun rounds, and yet...

 

Quote

That is not so difficult thing to understand.

 

Neither is that DCS is a sandbox with capability (and purpose) to create fictional missions and scenarios that are played.

 

Notice you said missions and scenarios, not aircraft that aren't supposed to be what they're supposed to be.

 

Quote

What is, and should be only limiting factor?

Politics? No.

Historical accuracy of events? No.

Technical facts? Yes.

 

Technical facts say that a F-16CM Block 50 of the USAF/ANG circa 2007 isn't equipped with APKWS, it didn't exist and didn't exist for nearly a decade, when we've had at least 2 major updates since then.

 

Facts of reality say that modern aircraft that do ballistics calculations for literally every weapon they fire (guided or not) would have the parameters of APKWS - which is why they're there on the A-10C... It's for the CCIP delivery mode, and the CCIP delivery mode needs to know the parameters of the weapons to give you a proper solution - it is like that for all rockets and bombs, guided or not.

 

Unless of course you want to implement APKWS, but not have its primary delivery mode implemented? So not only is the aircraft inconsistent with what it's supposed to represent, the weapons are inconsistent with how they're integrated on the aircraft! 

 

Quote

ED says that F-16C can't use weapon that is compatible with it (and used), because it didn't come to inventory than 9 years later.

 

Same time ED developed weapon and integrated it to F/A-18C, regardless it was removed from service and inventory 10 years earlier.

 

So let's make everything unrealistic too? I mean that's how it works right? If you steal from somebody, that makes stealing okay?

 

They should be consistent with their reasoning and IMO ED shouldn't have included AGM-62, AGM-84E and Litening.

 

Though given that ATFLIR still isn't ready I imagine there would be lots of complaints from people about not having a TGP, my guess is that these weapons were supposed to be interims in lieu of proper weapons.

 

Quote

And that is their argument with timeline here.

 

If someone would not like to use it, then don't. If someone doesnt want to use it earlier dated missions than 2016, then don't.

If someone wants to use it, they can - it is up to them decide do they follow timeline that 2016 it came to operational use, or do they skip timeline and use it any dates mission.

 

And if you don't want a 2007 F-16CM to represent the reality of an F-16CM, in 2007; then don't purchase it.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Do it support?

 

APKWS II is absolutely supported by our Viper, Hornet and by anything that can launch standard 70 mm Hydra rockets. There are two variants of that rocket for helicopters and for fixed wing aircraft.

 

Apart from y'know the SMS and the ballistics calculations, which doesn't support it. As evidenced by the A-10C.

 

Quote

Yes, that is one of the points. But they should as well be more accurate with the rules.

 

They absolutely should be consistent with the rules, 100% agree with you here. Consistency is a great thing in a simulator IMO. And would avoid this very thing.

 

Quote

Is the politics that rules what should be simulated (the authority that approve funding, decides the weapon loadout, decides the war where unit is sent)?

Is the history that rules what should be simulated (Are the liveries historically accurate, are the weapon loadouts historically accurate, are the places where the aircraft is flown historically accurate etc)?

Is the technology that rules what should be simulated (if the X is technically possible)?

 

This is again just one of the topics that are vulnerable for double standards from the developers. Like AGM-65D was removed from the Hornet, even when it is technically compatible with it, only because political reasons it was not used by the USN. Same way many can go and see that the Hornet in various countries didn't have example Maverick at all as USA politics didn't allow weapon to be exported to those countries regardless it is exact same Hornet, and yet in DCS we have those countries.

 

What aircraft developers should do IMO:

 

Step 1.) Pick an aircraft.

Step 2.) Pick a specific variant or block (if applicable)

Step 3.) Pick a specific operator, if different operators have different modifications.

Step 4.) If the aircraft's capability changes over the time (especially if more significantly so), pick a timeframe that the aircraft is supposed to represent.

Step 5.) Develop an aircraft that is representative of all of the above, where feasible.

 

What developers should avoid IMO:

 

Combining multiple aircraft variations into a single aircraft that's only supposed to be a specific one.

Combining multiple time periods into an aircraft that's supposed to represent an aircraft of a specific one (like our F-16C).

 

Quote

How difficult you think that it is for Viper team to implement the APKWS II to it, when already A-10C II brought it to the DCS World? The OH-58 Kiowa Warrior is going to use it as well and so on the weapon exist already in the DCS weapon library and mainly all that developers need to do is to add it to official loadout, similar manner as the modders does add example Mavericks or Hellfires to KA-50 etc. Modders just don't have the access to SDK so they can't create a new weapons or new guidance logic and such, but they can move things around with some limits.

 

Well, you say that our aircraft, as it is is 100% compatible with APKWS, so why don't you mod it in? It should be trivial right?

 

Quote

Like how difficult it would be to add it to Viper loadouts and be officially available only in missions dated 2016 (default in editor) or newer, and if designer disables time era filter then it would come visible like any other weapon for the date of mission? Like we already have F-15C that is modeled more as a 87-88 variant, but it uses AIM-120C5 from 2000-. How many F-15C fan would go crazy if the C version would be removed, or actually whole AIM-120 line would be removed? While many things would be added, some major capabilities would be removed if it would be transformed to full fidelity module, or applied even same rules as now.

 

If the time filter is set to 2016 and have stuff change, I would expect the aircraft variant to change too, given the successive updates. It makes no sense to me to cherry pick some capabilities but not others, it's an incoherent mess.

 

If our F-16C were to be APKWS equipped when setting the date appropriately, I'd expect them to also be equipped with everything else F-16s in 2016 are fitted for too. Otherwise it's inconsistent.

 

As for the F-15C, I have no idea what timeframe it's supposed to represent, that's what you get when you have a much more simplified aircraft.

 

And as for fans going crazy if they lose their AMRAAMs on a plane not representative of one that has one, that's on them. I think it's pretty silly to pick up something that's whole mission goal and description is to offer something as realistic as possible, and then take issue with it being so.

 

Quote

Yes, and that is the point of the APKWS II for the Viper, Hornet etc. It is 100% realistic to have in 2016 as it is backward compatible. It can not be argued that same should apply to AIM-9X Block II or AIM-120D etc, because those weapons requires changes, but APKWS II doesn't.

 

The same exact things apply to different gun rounds, exactly the same thing. And oh, look what happens with those...

 

Quote

So that pilot know what weapon is loaded?

It is not required feature to use the weapon.

 

Neither is having the HUD symbology to fire the gun in the Hornet, nor any symbology on the HUD at all, for any weapon, nor do you need a ballistics computer to use things like Mk82s, GBU-12s, or in fact the gun. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from selecting a weapon, turning the HUD off, and using the weapon.

 

It's not that it needs it to launch and use, it's that it's needed to fully integrate the weapon properly with the aircraft's systems. I mean right now to launch an AMRAAM all you need to do is be in AA master mode, have the AMRAAM selected, master arm on and hold the fire button down, it doesn't need anything else from the aircraft to launch. Sure, you won't be maximising its effectiveness, but in terms of absolute requirements that's all you need.

 

But to properly integrate the weapon, the aircraft needs to know the parameters so in can calculate DLZs, TTG/TTIs among everything else. For things like GBU-12s, all you need to do is select it, configure the fusing (though you don't even need to that, if you're talking about just being able to drop the weapon), A/G master mode, master arm on and done. You don't necessarily need to do anything else.

 

The same applies to APKWS, the difference is, without the parameters being known, CCIP will be inaccurate or not be present, and that's the main delivery mode used for rockets of any kind.

 

If CCIP is inaccurate with APKWS without the laser, then we'll get bug reports won't we?

If CCIP isn't available, we'll probably get lots of people asking for it, as that is part of the weapon integration, on the real aircraft.

 

Sure it doesn't need CCIP to launch, but neither does any A/G weapon, and yet?

 

Quote

You know that is a completely moot point. Because we are talking about conversion of unguided rockets to laser guided rockets. You do not need anymore even accurate impact point aimpoint because it is irrelevant to laser guided designation. None of the sources I have found to say that the kinematic flight profile has changed. Even when it gets more weight and drag, the wings corrects that. And even when you can use those rockets without laser designation as they would be unguided ones, you are totally wasting them. It is like using a GBU-12 as Mk.82. Technically you can, but you really shouldn't.

 

And in the tests the APKWS II has shown that it flies longer than unguided version, because it has the wings. It generates more lift and flies as far as the rocket motor makes it, it is rocket motor limited weapon for the range, as in the tests the seeker has even hit targets past 14 km. And as it is modular conversion addition that has no connection to launcher, you can create new rocket motor that makes it fly even further than current ones.

 

You are talking about ballistic weapons, unguided ones, not about unguided > guided conversion that increase precision, capability hit moving targets, longer engagement ranges etc.

Just already understand what even manufacturer says that there is nothing to be changed because weapon requires it.

 

Except it isn't though is it? It's just another inconvenient truth for you.

 

All of our modern aircraft do calculations for basically any weapon, including guided A/G ones, this is because it increases the effectiveness of the weapon, and knowing where the weapon is going to land if left unguided (for whatever a reason) is always going to be a good thing.

 

If you drop a GBU-12 in CCIP unguided, the pipper will work as it does with any bomb. Sure you can say why would you do that? You shouldn't be doing that! But this is how the real aircraft is, the real aircraft knows the parameters of the weapons it's using, to calculate a firing solution, regardless if it is necessary to drop the weapon or not.

 

It's designed to increase effectiveness - if you drop a GBU-12 in CCIP with the pipper on the target, the bomb will most likely have more energy and is less likely to miss. 

 

Quote

Doesn't matter. Our Viper is 100% compatible with the APKWS II. And it is known that new software versions are developed in those 3 years, it isn't that aircrafts gets updated to it. It costs money and only specific sets gets updated. It is not like a "New Updates available, do you want to download and install now?" but it is just development process. Like the latest version of tape was funded only for 300 something from 700. The others were left to the future if needed. And those 300 are updated in coming years, not on one year.

That is why it is required to know what specific airframes are updated and not, but it is still irrelevant as no software updates are required to add the compatibility for APKWS II.

 

 

I never said these updates get fleet wide within a year, just that it's been significant fractions of a decade (at least) since these successive major updates came out.

 

Ultimately, if you're claiming that our aircraft, as it is, is fielding APKWS; the onus is on you to go and find it.

 

Not that it's relevant as our aircraft is supposed to represent the capabilities of one as it was in 2007, with the weapons that were present at the time. APKWS wasn't so it's not in.

 

Quote

We should have M5.2 as we have features that came with it AFAIK.

 

We should have at least M5.1 if we're getting JSOW, but that would also mean replacing one of the radios with an ARC-210, implementing the EGBU-12, getting enhanced Link 16 messages that works with dissimilar aircraft, as well as an advanced SMS and mission planning system. As well as a more accurate INS and more EW resistant GPS (not that the latter is modelled in DCS).

 

At least if this is anything to go by.

 

Quote

But it doesn't matter as we do not know has all been updated or not, and still irrelevant as none of those updates brought or denied the APKWS II compatibility and capability.

Just already understand, software updates are irrelevant for APKWS II. Why it is irrelevant argument that software updates are needed or they change something or it is not same.

 

*cough* A-10C *cough cough*

 

Quote

Already provided it is 100% compatible. Your job is to provide evidence that counters the official data and information and technical facts.

 

The technical facts is that an F-16 circa 2007, isn't APKWS equipped, you really need to accept it.

 

Quote

False.

 

You're going to have to be a bit more convincing than that I'm afraid.

 

Quote

False, you are talking about different weapon requirements. Not APKWS II compatibility.

 

The same exact thing applies to those gun rounds just as much as they apply to APKWS - the aircraft does the exact same thing with both.

 

Quote

False. It didn't talk about our specific aircraft, but just about his airbase. You can go search that member from this forum if you want. He was confirmed anyways here. But if you do not get the point, F-16CM Blk 50 is not like a factory product that all units are same. That is why it is super easy to make a "frankenstain".

 

You've been making arguments that ED should only allow the aircraft to be part of a specific squadron (which implies specific airbase) and should only allow missions dated to 2007.

 

Only we have no idea what that specific aircraft, squadron or airbase is - literally ghost hunting. Not only that but we only have 1 airbase for USAF/ANG F-16Cs in DCS, of which there is only 1 squadron we have the livery for - the 64th Aggressors.

 

Quote

And that is 100% compatible with APKWS II. As is. No updates required to use that rocket. Only requirement should be that mission is dated to 2016+ if wanted to be more realistic with the timeline.

 

Exactly the same with the gun rounds... And yet, and yet...

 

Quote

Already explained.

 

No you didn't you hand waved it away, then said it was false. You completely ignored that the A-10C does in fact have a dedicated profile in its DSMS to fully integrate APKWS rockets.

 

You just say it isn't a strict requirement to launch it, which also goes for tonnes of weapons, if not every weapon (at least in terms of A/G ones), there's nothing stopping you dropping a GBU-12 in manual mode, miles off target 

 

Quote

Please provide evidence to counter official information, documentation and technical data that APKWS II requires software modifications.

 

The A-10Cs DSMS, the A-10Cs HUD symbology for the APKWS, its CCIP delivery mode.

 

Sure APKWS doesn't require you know this, but the fact is, in real aircraft, the parameters are needed for CCIP delivery. You need a software update to fully integrate the weapon with the aircraft, to provide at the very least, CCIP delivery.

 

Quote

Stage is yours. I don't need to counter those as I am not arguing against official information.

 

No, only arguing against the reality of a 2007 F-16C accurately depicting a 2007 F-16C, as it was.

 

Quote

No. You want it to be upgraded to 2016+ version, not me. I want to keep it as is.

 

How do you do say this with a straight face? I mean, everything you've said in this thread has been the complete polar opposite of you keeping it as it is.

 

Quote

But it is allowed to be used in any mission dated newer than 2007, like the mission editor default 2016.

 

What about everything else that 2016 F-16Cs have? Or is consistency invalid and illogical too?

 

Quote

Lies.

 

Sure...

 

Quote

You put words to my mouth. But you still agree with me that politics, history etc should be irrelevant factor and only 100% technical capabilities should be the goal.

Let me quote your own words:

 

"DCS should be striving to be as realistic as possible, it's never going to get there 100% but that should be the goal and IMO developers shouldn't be going out of their way to oppose that, as it is the whole point of DCS. "

 

They literally have gone oppose the 100% reality that should be the goal, and in your own words, you agree with me and the OP about APKWS II for F-16CM Blk 50 (with what ever tape version) when mission is dated 2016+.

 

It's amazing that you accuse me of twisting my words, only to do the exact same thing.

 

Ultimately it is realistic that our F-16CM Block 50 shouldn't have APKWS.

 

Quote

So our Viper could use APKWS II in 2016+ missions, thank you again agreeing.

 

Hilarious.

 

Quote

That is irrelevant argument. You are now requiring that studios would model every single aircraft like they would be udated from X to Z year.

 

It's not irrelevant, just consistent. I know you must absolutely abhor the idea.

 

And I'm not the one perpetually complaining, in the face of what has been said by the studio themselves, over and over and over again, that flies in the face of the mission goals of DCS, the planned goals and features of the F-16CM model.

 

I don't care which variant you make, just pick one (though preferably one customers would want) and commit to it, and be consistent about it. That's it. 

 

Quote

You are trying to use the arguments that APKWS II requires software updates. Please provide evidence for that.

 

I said it requires software updates to be integrated with the aircraft for the DSMS and CCIP delivery, as clearly evidenced by the A-10C.

 

Quote

That is a lie and you know it.

 

Haha, right.

 

Quote

Here is the huge difference that you purposely try to twist.

 

You write: "You on the other hand want to take an aircraft that's supposed to represent a 2007 version be a 2016+ version"

I write: "Our viper is available for missions dated 2016+ where our Viper is still flying as is right now, and it is still capable use APKWS II without any software updates".

 

Is our Viper still flying as is right now, with APKWS, off you go and find one!

 

Quote

You are trying to twist my argument to be that ED should modify the Viper for something else than it is not. That is a lie.

 

Are you serious?

 

A 2007 F-16C with APKWS isn't a 2007 F-16C! No F-16C circa 2007 fired APKWS ever. Nor were any fitted with APKWS circa 2007.

 

Therefore, if you want APKWS, you don't want a 2007 F-16C to represent a 2007 F-16C!

 

Quote

You just don't understand that the Viper would not need any single change to be able use APKWS II as it is designed to be so.

It is not a ballistic bullet like you try to argue.

It is not a AIM-120D like you try to argue.

It is not about anything as you try to argue.

It is very unique 100% backward compatible plug'n'play weapon conversion kit.

 

*COUGH* A-10C *COUGH COUGH*

 

*COUGH* CCIP delivery mode *COUGH COUGH*

 

*COUGH COUGH* SMS profile *COUGH COUGH*

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I think I'm going to stop after this, we've surpassed ridiculous long back, you had it answered so many times, only for you to stick your fingers in your ears.

 

It is you who sticks fingers to somewhere else than on keyboard.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And how you say "I've already accepted ED's position" and even "I've accepted it from the start" While continuing to go on a crusade against it, and call the arguments why illogical and invalid; I mean it makes so much sense.

 

You do not understand that there is difference to go against ED answer, and to require you to explain your position as you keep moving goalposts.

If in your country a new law is approved that says that every Sunday people need to go to Church. You need to accept it, but it doesn't mean that you can not discuss with others about it.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Neither do the Hornet's gun rounds, and yet...

 

You are comparing unguided kinematic bullets that are required to be aimed with a reticle, to a laser guided rocket that increase accuracy, range and overall weapon peformance.

 

You are comparing apples to a goose.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Notice you said missions and scenarios, not aircraft that aren't supposed to be what they're supposed to be.

 

Missions and scenarios include all the vehicles there. You make what you want with them with their technical limitations. Not limitations of the time, location, politics or even religion.

Like did the USN F/A-18C Lot 20 fly combat missions in Syria at 2005?

Did the Sweden Viggen fly combat missions in Caucasus in 1993?

 

The APKWS II is a weapon, not an aircraft.

It is a weapon upgrade, not a aircraft upgrade.

It is available to all aircrafts that are capable fire standard Hydra 70 rockets since 2008-2012 technically and historically little later.

It doesn't require any modifications or changed to aircraft to be used.

 

It is independent weapon system from any aircraft, what makes it a special.

It is not like a AIM-9X or AIM-120 or most any other rocket/missile weapons.

 

It is up to mission/scenario/campaign creator that decides what timeline their mission is in their fictional story. The story can be very weak or non-existing, or it can be very colorful. But only thing that should matter is technical capabilities of the airframes.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Technical facts say that a F-16CM Block 50 of the USAF/ANG circa 2007 isn't equipped with APKWS, it didn't exist and didn't exist for nearly a decade, when we've had at least 2 major updates since then.

 

Technical facts are that F-16CM Block 50 of the USAF/ANG circa 2007 is 100% capable use APKWS II as is, only if the weapon is made available to it.

There is no software or hardware updates required to it be usable.

When you put that Viper in default mission in 2016, you should have it officially available.

When you put that Viper in a mission that is 2015 or earlier, then you shouldn't have it official availabe for it.

You do not need to have upgraded/updated Viper to have APKWS II capability. You can even take any older F-16 that is capable to launch Hydra 70 rockets and use APKWS II with it, not all for self-designation but that is then its limitation.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Facts of reality say that modern aircraft that do ballistics calculations for literally every weapon they fire (guided or not) would have the parameters of APKWS - which is why they're there on the A-10C... It's for the CCIP delivery mode, and the CCIP delivery mode needs to know the parameters of the weapons to give you a proper solution - it is like that for all rockets and bombs, guided or not.

 

Facts are, you do not aim a laser guided weapon with a reticle to hit the target. You use the laser designator to aim the laser spot on target.

The APKWS II is plug and play, no software modifications required. You load it and you launch it like unguided rocket but only knowing that if you want to get that precision hit the guided module offers over unguided rockets, you need to have target painted with laser somehow. The parameters are same, guided or not guided. Only difference is that your laser designator makes you able hit moving targets and higher precision (< 1 m CEP) that you can't do with unguided and reticle aiming.

 

It is a moot argument that APKWS II requires a software modification to be able aim it.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Unless of course you want to implement APKWS, but not have its primary delivery mode implemented? So not only is the aircraft inconsistent with what it's supposed to represent, the weapons are inconsistent with how they're integrated on the aircraft! 

 

What is the primary delivery?

 

Please explain how does the AGR-20 primary delivery different technically from the unguided one?

Like why you need to use that reticle to hit that target with AGR-20?

There is nothing technically different that do you carry unguided or guided rocket. Nothing.

The difference is that you need to know is the target painted with laser or not if you want it to be in its primary use, a guided rocket.

 

You have now just gone to the mode that APKWS II requires heavy softare changes and special functions to be used.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So let's make everything unrealistic too right? I mean that's how it works right? If you steal from somebody, that makes stealing okay?

 

No, it is opposite as it is realistic that our Viper could use APKWS II in 2016+ missions.

As well make it realistic that remove the Walleye II from the Hornet. Sorry, doesn't fit there unless you take Hornet to missions in 1995 or earlier. But same time you have to leave other weapons away like AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JHMCS etc etc if want to be historically more proper.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

They should be consistent with their reasoning and IMO ED shouldn't have included AGM-62, AGM-84E and Litening.

 

So.... Why you are defending ED argument and disagreeing with the APKWS II being capable on any fixed wing aircraft in 2016 missions that can use Hydra 70 rockets?

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Though given that ATFLIR still isn't ready I imagine there would be lots of complaints from people about not having a TGP, my guess is that these weapons were supposed to be interims in lieu of proper weapons.

 

Is it technically capable carry TGP?

Then what does the politics matter? Restrict the TGP to proper years in missions if so wanted. Not were every F-16CM carrying any targeting pods. So why should ours carry anything?

Ah... Because technically it is capable to! Exactly!

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And if you don't want a 2007 F-16CM to represent the reality of an F-16CM, in 2007; then don't purchase it.

 

If you do not want to fly F-16CM Blk 50 in any other year than 2007, then do not fly it in any other missions! But allow others to enjoy compatible weapons and systems as it has in 2007 configuration but in other dated missions than 2007!

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Apart from y'know the SMS and the ballistics calculations, which doesn't support it. As evidenced by the A-10C.

 

A-10C is not evidence. It is a invalid argument.

 

Please provide evidence what software updates and compatibility is required for launching Hydra 70 rockets?

Because for the aircraft there is no difference. There is no communication, no wired or wireless. There is no programming, there is no ballistic solution, there is nothing to be done in the airframe itself or its computers.

 

The weapons system doesn't even know how many rockets does it have loaded unless you set the value there. As you are allowed to have rocket loads that are not full pods. The ground crew needs only to load the rockets on proper tubes as the impuses are sent in specific order. And ground crew will program the SMS that there is only X amount of rockets. The computer itself keeps a track that how many firing commands were sent and counts down from its own catalog. The pod doesn't tell anything back that X count is left or X is spent or so on.

 

You literally set in the pod is it ripple or single fire mode as the pod itself send amount of impulses based that switch from the electric pulse it received from aircraft, you load the rockets in proper order in. Just before taxiin you remove the safety pin from the pod rear, that it grounds the circuitry so it is capable send impulses to tubes firing pins that are touching rocket ignitor band. First thing to do when aircraft parks is to insert safety pin back to rocket pods so they are safe for accidental launch as electronic impulse might get released.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

They absolutely should be consistent with the rules, 100% agree with you here. Consistency is a great thing in a simulator IMO. And would avoid this very thing.

 

Consistent is that AGR-20 becomes available in 2016 for our Viper. If the mission is not 2016+ then it is not available if the historical filter is On.

This is technical fact and even reality. As we can not lock modules to fly only in their presented year (2005, 2007, 1993, 1983 etc) as you can never get them to fly together by any means.

The fact is as well that not all aircraft are upgraded or updated same time in the inventory. Russia is not the only one that flies old variants and old no-upgraded versions of aircraft. USA does that same thing. Not all are updated and upgraded same priority, many doesn't get anything while next guy gets. It is just politics.

So it is not historically wrong that F-16CM Blk 50 Tape M4/4+ is in service in 2021, without anything done for it since 2007.

Same way it is not historically wrong that Vietnam uses Su-27S (SK, but they are basically same) even in 2013-2021.

So make a fictional mission where Vietnam is defending its borders from USN political attack in coming free Mariana Island map, dated to 2005, where our Hornets are correctly timelined with the Su-27S, or make it otherway around if so wanted story to go. It can even exist in 2013, as Hornet was in that configuration even then, or we can even make it to 2018 where even our Hornets was using APKWS II rockets (USMC). (simply put, even our Hornet should have it available for missions 2018+).

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What aircraft developers should do IMO:

 

Step 1.) Pick an aircraft.

Step 2.) Pick a specific variant or block (if applicable)

Step 3.) Pick a specific operator, if different operators have different modifications.

Step 4.) If the aircraft's capability changes over the time (especially if more significantly so), pick a timeframe that the aircraft is supposed to represent.

Step 5.) Develop an aircraft that is representative of all of the above, where feasible.

 

So simply put. No politics, no history, only hard facts about technical compatibilities for the given version.

 

Hence APKWS II support for F-16CM Blk 50 what-ever-tape since 2016.

Hence APKWS II support for F/A-18C Lot 20 what-ever-country since 2018.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What developers should avoid IMO:

 

Combining multiple aircraft variations into a single aircraft that's only supposed to be a specific one.

 

What the APKWS II doesn't do. As it is not specific variation dependent. It is backward compatible, plug and play rocket upgrade, not an aircraft upgrade or anything like that.

If the aircraft can fire Hydra 70 rockets, then it is capable to launch APKWS II, it is the same thing. The procedure is different as one's target can be designated with laser, other can't.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Combining multiple time periods into an aircraft that's supposed to represent an aircraft of a specific one (like our F-16C).

 

You are stuck to that idea that it is so. No! Just No!

1) APKWS II doesn't require any modifications to aircraft hardware or software.

2) F-16C Blk 50 what-ever-tape is capable use APKWS II as long it is capable launch Hydra 70 rockets.

3) Our specific Viper didn't end up in 2007, it is even today in service, and it is not only one but there are plenty of its kinds in service, where many are less or more different. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, you say that our aircraft, as it is is 100% compatible with APKWS, so why don't you mod it in? It should be trivial right?

 

Because this is not about getting a mod, this is about getting ED to officially make it available in 2016+ for all.

There is difference that studio does something officially, and then some mods are required.

Just like there is that studio does official liveries, and then some artists makes own custom ones.

Just like there is that studio makes official missions, tutorials, campaigns etc, and then every player can make their own.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If the time filter is set to 2016 and have stuff change, I would expect the aircraft variant to change too, given the successive updates. It makes no sense to me to cherry pick some capabilities but not others, it's an incoherent mess.

 

You are just using the moot argument. You are cherry picking the idea that once the module is out of its date, it is changed somehow. Like our Hornet should always stay in 2007, even when in fact it is still as is in 2018-2021.

So the Hornet doesn't present a 2007, it does at least 2007-2021 period. That is the possibility you can do with technical compatibilities in fair and square if just ED would allow technically realistic weapons loadouts.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If our F-16C were to be APKWS equipped when setting the date appropriately, I'd expect them to also be equipped with everything else F-16s in 2016 are fitted for too. Otherwise it's inconsistent.

 

No, as you can't expect that all gets all the latest tech and things that requires upgrades. APKWS II doesn't require upgrades as it can be taken to old variants without modernizations as long they can launch Hydra 70 rockets.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As for the F-15C, I have no idea what timeframe it's supposed to represent, that's what you get when you have a much more simplified aircraft.

 

It really doesn't represent anything, as it is mixture from the era when Lock-On was a thing and military information was sacred and Ubisoft wanted BOOM BOOM game. And ED has not wanted to touch it at all (likely some IP restrictions).

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And as for fans going crazy if they lose their AMRAAMs on a plane not representative of one that has one, that's on them. I think it's pretty silly to pick up something that's whole mission goal and description is to offer something as realistic as possible, and then take issue with it being so.

 

It is as realistic as possible to have APKWS II on our Viper in 2016+ missions.

No "what if's" but just so.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The same exact things apply to different gun rounds, exactly the same thing. And oh, look what happens with those...

 

No, it doesn't. You are again comparing apples to gorillas.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Neither is having the HUD symbology to fire the gun in the Hornet, nor any symbology on the HUD at all, for any weapon, nor do you need a ballistics computer to use things like Mk82s, GBU-12s, or in fact the gun. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from selecting a weapon, turning the HUD off, and using the weapon.

 

APKWS II doesn't benefit, or require any softare mofifications. Those other weapons you say does require them and benefit from them.

There is nothing that makes you launch the APKWS II differently with any updates than what unguided Hydra 70 rocket is now.

You can even go and now pretend that your Hydra 70 rockets are AGR-20 and use TGP to designate target before launching and the only difference would be that AGR-20 would actually hit where your laser spot is, where unguided doesn't than by luck.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's not that it needs it to launch and use, it's that it's needed to fully integrate the weapon properly with the aircraft's systems. I mean right now to launch an AMRAAM all you need to do is be in AA master mode, have the AMRAAM selected, master arm on and hold the fire button down, it doesn't need anything else from the aircraft to launch. Sure, you won't be maximising its effectiveness, but in terms of absolute requirements that's all you need.

 

There is literally nothing like that required. The APKWS II is not any different from unguided Hydra 70 rocket you can now carry and launch. The computers does't need to know anything to use it or make it work better. Your job as pilot is required to know when the target is designated with laser and when it is not and is it correct laser code that is set in the rocket.

There is nothing else there. The rocket pods could even be empty and nothing would change.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But to properly integrate the weapon, the aircraft needs to know the parameters so in can calculate DLZs, TTG/TTIs among everything else. For things like GBU-12s, all you need to do is select it, configure the fusing (though you don't even need to that, if you're talking about just being able to drop the weapon), A/G master mode, master arm on and done. You don't necessarily need to do anything else.

 

Same as the standard Hydra 70 rockets.... You do not benefit from anything else for it as it is same rocket, just guided one. The difference is that you can have target painted with laser and your rocket will seek to it with high precision.

Your procedure to launch AGR-20 is same as now, except you might want to use that guidance section capability than just launch them as unguided rockets and waste the increased precision.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The same applies to APKWS, the difference is, without the parameters being known, CCIP will be inaccurate or not be present, and that's the main delivery mode used for rockets of any kind.

 

No it doesn't.

It is known by the manufacturer, so if you can't provide evidence saying otherwise then....

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If CCIP is inaccurate with APKWS without the laser, then we'll get bug reports won't we?

 

Why, if it is same?

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If CCIP isn't available, we'll probably get lots of people asking for it, as that is part of the weapon integration, on the real aircraft.

 

You can launch it like any unguided rocket. The aircraft has zero information coming from the pod. It doesn't know anything about it being guided one, unless you want to inform the pilot by telling him "Hey, you have now guided rockets there with code XXXX, don't forget!".

You can't choose is it ripple or signel fire.

You can't change laser code.

Your CCIP point doesn't change.

You don't need to have target locked before launch.

You don't need to use the laser even.

 

You fly your attack just like now with unguided rockets, that you can do right now. Only difference is that the AGR-20 will actually seek to the laser dot and not be a unguided one that are inaccurate anyways.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Sure it doesn't need CCIP to launch, but neither does any A/G weapon, and yet?

 

Now you are just gasping straws...

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Except it isn't though is it? It's just another inconvenient truth for you.

 

It is.... You do not understand even the basic that bullet has different thing than laser guided rocket that seeks to the laser dot and is not aimed by the reticle.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

All of our modern aircraft do calculations for basically any weapon, including guided A/G ones, this is because it increases the effectiveness of the weapon, and knowing where the weapon is going to land if left unguided (for whatever a reason) is always going to be a good thing.

 

Nothing changes. Go now and launch the Hydra 70 rockets on Viper and designate the target with laser. The difference is that AGR-20 would impact same way as your unguided ones if you do not designate the target, and if you do designate the target, then your unguided ones doesn't hit there because laser was there.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If you drop a GBU-12 in CCIP unguided, the pipper will work as it does with any bomb. Sure you can say why would you do that? You shouldn't be doing that! But this is how the real aircraft is, the real aircraft knows the parameters of the weapons it's using, to calculate a firing solution, regardless if it is necessary to drop the weapon or not.

 

Gasping the straws....

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's designed to increase effectiveness - if you drop a GBU-12 in CCIP with the pipper on the target, the bomb will most likely have more energy and is less likely to miss. 

 

The GBU-12 Bang-Bang guidance says otherwise. Too much energy in the designation phase can put make the bomb miss the target. Just like can be seen in the DCS, except DCS doesn't even model Bang-Bang but much more modern one that came in JDAM and GBU-48 etc that can do fine gradual corrections.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I never said these updates get fleet wide within a year, just that it's been significant fractions of a decade (at least) since these successive major updates came out.

 

Yes, but regardless that it is a moot argument. No software changes required, no hardware changes required. Fully backward compatible. = Irrelevant argument that something could have been changed in the future as nothing would change that unless you remove the capability launch Hydra 70 rockets or APKWS II wouldn't be available in 2016+...

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Ultimately, if you're claiming that our aircraft, as it is, is fielding APKWS; the onus is on you to go and find it.

 

Already presented. You need to counter the official information.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Not that it's relevant as our aircraft is supposed to represent the capabilities of one as it was in 2007, with the weapons that were present at the time. APKWS wasn't so it's not in.

 

No, but neither did our Viper get out of service end of 2007....  It is even in service today.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

We should have at least M5.1 if we're getting JSOW, but that would also mean replacing one of the radios with an ARC-210, implementing the EGBU-12, getting enhanced Link 16 messages that works with dissimilar aircraft, as well as an advanced SMS and mission planning system. As well as a more accurate INS and more EW resistant GPS (not that the

latter is modelled in DCS).

At least if this is anything to go by.

 

The fact is, ED got surprised suddenly in many of their modules that there are things just wrong. Thanks to Early Access and their willingness to listen reason.

Be it a LTD/R switch being two and not three position one, add a weapon loadout for Viper like LAU-88 for triple Mavericks etc , but all are technical compatibility questions, that APKWS II should as well be, not a political one.

Same time ED does go around with Walleye II and trying to find a way to justify various liveries etc because simply put, they would need to shrink their offerings a lot in many ways if they wouldn't stick to creative freedom.

I have somewhere the accurate tape versions, additions etc. It was already there that our Viper is a mixture of at least two tapes from different years.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

*cough* A-10C *cough cough*

 

Doesn't matter. It is A-10C.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The technical facts is that an F-16 circa 2007, isn't APKWS equipped, you really need to accept it.

 

That is a historical argument, not technical.

The technical fact is that our F-16 circa 2007 is 100% capable use APKWS II in full capability and performance without any software updates.

You just don't want to accept that.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You're going to have to be a bit more convincing than that I'm afraid.

 

It is just false.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The same exact thing applies to those gun rounds just as much as they apply to APKWS - the aircraft does the exact same thing with both.

 

No.... You are talking unguided vs unguided and try to argue it is same thing as unguided vs guided.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You've been making arguments that ED should only allow the aircraft to be part of a specific squadron (which implies specific airbase) and should only allow missions dated to 2007.

 

No, you have been doing that, and ED is doing that. Like ED has even removed features because their modeled USAF didn't do something that some other country with same airframe did. Not because technicalities but because "We do the USA, not the "Norway"" etc where different political reasons made different official loadouts (funding etc).

 

My argument from the start has been the opposite, if you would follow. I am literally against that ED goes to argue that they model very specific aircraft that is unique in the whole universe and there is no other like it anywhere else. They want to tie it to one unit, one year, one airbase, one squadron. And that is just wrong as then they go to offer liveries for other countries and squadrons etc as well, and likely even have historically wrong liveries in the first place too. So just make the mind that is it the one specific, or is it generally the type. As very well next to the very specific one there can be another like it but have capability for something else or lack some capability.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Only we have no idea what that specific aircraft, squadron or airbase is - literally ghost hunting. Not only that but we only have 1 airbase for USAF/ANG F-16Cs in DCS, of which there is only 1 squadron we have the livery for - the 64th Aggressors.

 

I actually know exactly what airframe it is, who is the current ground crew chief etc.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Exactly the same with the gun rounds... And yet, and yet...

 

Not at all. Yet....

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

No you didn't you hand waved it away, then said it was false. You completely ignored that the A-10C does in fact have a dedicated profile in its DSMS to fully integrate APKWS rockets.

 

Please provide evidence to counter official information and technical documentation how APKWS II works, that it requires DSMS software updates to be "fully integrated".

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You just say it isn't a strict requirement to launch it, which also goes for tonnes of weapons, if not every weapon (at least in terms of A/G ones), there's nothing stopping you dropping a GBU-12 in manual mode, miles off target 

 

Wrong again. It looks like a banana, it flies like a banana, it hits like a banana - very likely it is a banana.....

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The A-10Cs DSMS, the A-10Cs HUD symbology for the APKWS, its CCIP delivery mode.

 

Irrelevant.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Sure APKWS requires you know this, but the fact is, in real aircraft, the parameters are needed for CCIP delivery. You need a software update to fully integrate the weapon with the aircraft.

 

Irrelevant. Already explained. Please provide evidence for this "fully integrated".

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

No, only arguing against the reality of a 2007 F-16C accurately depicting a 2007 F-16C, as it was.

 

No, I have not made argument that APKWS II should be available for Viper in 2007 as you claim.

The reality is that 2016 it became operational use and it is so even in our current Viper configuration from 2007.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

How do you do say this with a straight face? I mean, everything you've said in this thread has been the complete polar opposite of you keeping it as it is.

 

Because you made that claim, not me.

You just do not understand that your arguments are that F-16C must be changed so that it can use APKWS II or it is "fully integrated to it".

I have never said that it must be changed, modified, updated, upgraded.... As in 2016 the version we have now as 2007 version is fully compatible with APKWS II. Not 99% but 100%. Fully integrated (to quote your definition).

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What about everything else that 2016 F-16Cs have? Or is consistency invalid and illogical too?

 

Does the AIM-120D require software update? Yes...

Does the GBU-48 require softare update? Yes....

Does the X weapon require software update? If yes, then no-go!

 

You are not following at all....

 

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's amazing that you accuse me of twisting my words, only to do the exact same thing.

 

You are the one....

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Ultimately it is realistic that our F-16CM Block 50 shouldn't have APKWS.

 

Yes in 2007. But No in 2016+.... Technically APKWS II is compatible with the 2007 status quo.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Hilarious.

 

Yes, you don't even realize that you agree with it, but you want to disagree just because you do not like me.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's not irrelevant, just consistent. I know you must absolutely abhor the idea.

 

Yes it is as you just don't claim that airframe needs to be updated to use newer weapon that it already is compatible with just to get it match the date when the new weapon came operational use, but that you even claim that I demand that.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And I'm not the one perpetually complaining, in the face of what has been said by the studio themselves, over and over and over again, that flies in the face of the mission goals of DCS, the planned goals and features of the F-16CM model.

 

And they should be resticted to 100% technical accuracy of given version, not to historical accuracy, not to political accuracy, not to religion.

If a weapon X is compatible and usable with the module, so be it.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't care which variant you make, just pick one (though preferably one customers would want) and commit to it, and be consistent about it. That's it. 

 

Yes, and APKWS II is technically compatile with it, and available for its operational use in 2016 and forward, technically as it stands already.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I said it requires software updates to be integrated with the aircraft for the DSMS and CCIP delivery, as clearly evidenced by the A-10C.

 

No it doesn't require. You already have there support for the Hydra 70 rockets. https://youtu.be/yol9KRITtf4

You get rocket count (19) and warhead (M151) just like with APKWS II. As nothing of those changes with APKWS II to be fully integrated and operational.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Haha, right.

Yeah...

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Is our Viper still flying as is right now, with APKWS, off you go and find one!

 

I don't know about it using APKWS II exactly, but it is flying and it is 100% compatible with APKWS II. That is a technical fact.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Are you serious?

 

Yes, that is what you claimed well knowing it is untrue.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

A 2007 F-16C with APKWS isn't a 2007 F-16C! No F-16C circa 2007 fired APKWS ever. Nor were any fitted with APKWS circa 2007.

 

It is. If you would go back to 2007 and you would store it to warehouse, open the warehouse in 2016 and you would take the APKWS II rockets and load it to it, you would be fully capable utilize them in full potential and capability as is.

 

Hence 2007 F-16CM Blk 50 no-matter-what-tape is 100% compatible with APKWS II.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Therefore, if you want APKWS, you don't want a 2007 F-16C to represent a 2007 F-16C!

 

Again, you do not want to fly Viper with the Hornet, nor with the Flanker, nor with the Fulcrum, nor with the Viggen, nor with anything that is NOT FROM 2007!

You can not use it to attack on anything that is from any other year than 2007. That is your point.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

*COUGH* A-10C *COUGH COUGH*

*COUGH* CCIP delivery mode *COUGH COUGH*

*COUGH COUGH* SMS profile *COUGH COUGH*

 

All Invalid arguments.

And do something for your cough....

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Appreciate you are passionate about this Fri13, but the answer has not changed, we will not be adding APKWS to the viper.

 

thanks

 

I understand that. There is no need for ED to repeat that answer. But it would be nice if ED would in the future try to explain what is really the goal, like technical accuracy, historical accuracy or political accuracy. As it is slippery slope quickly when it is anything else than technical accuracy. (And if someone doesn't get the difference, it is that if the technical manual says that airframe in X configuration is compatible with the weapon Y, then that is only thing that should matter. And not that is the aircraft owner USN, USMC, USAF, RAAF, RAF, Luftwaffe etc. Or is it a reason because lack of funding from government to buy weapons or was the operation that such weapons were not required and they were not allowed to be used).

 

Oh, and if possible then in future as well list in the module sale page more accurate information about the exact versions etc. So example someone looking info for what Viggen or Harrier was modeled after. Like it could even be in the official manual at least as accurate as possible.

[BIGNEWY]

44 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

I understand that. There is no need for ED to repeat that answer. But it would be nice if ED would in the future try to explain what is really the goal, like technical accuracy, historical accuracy or political accuracy. As it is slippery slope quickly when it is anything else than technical accuracy. (And if someone doesn't get the difference, it is that if the technical manual says that airframe in X configuration is compatible with the weapon Y, then that is only thing that should matter. And not that is the aircraft owner USN, USMC, USAF, RAAF, RAF, Luftwaffe etc. Or is it a reason because lack of funding from government to buy weapons or was the operation that such weapons were not required and they were not allowed to be used).

 

Oh, and if possible then in future as well list in the module sale page more accurate information about the exact versions etc. So example someone looking info for what Viggen or Harrier was modeled after. Like it could even be in the official manual at least as accurate as possible.

 

Thanks for the feedback, regarding the viper everything on the store page is correct. 

We also have a planned payloads post on the forum that is subject to change, we state the version we are planning to do in this case the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007. 

I think this thread has run its course, if you have any more questions feel free to PM me. 

 

thanks