NVG in AJS37

[Scandfox]

In last update somebody has put in NVG in AJS37.......

Looking forward explanation as we never had it IRL

[Harlikwin]

Yeah, this whole NVG in planes that never had it is really lame frankly.

 

[randomTOTEN]

The answer is reddit.

 

We had to make sure the Viggen was clubby37's favorite night jet... now you all get NVG's whether you like it not, realism or not.

 

I was thinking of making a post when I saw that, but I realized it wold probably be deleted or closed, and with support from many other users. inb4 "if you don't like it, don't use it."

 

Seems that's just the latest trend with DCS as it has gotten more popular as a platform. People don't want a study aircraft. They have expectations of what a combat jet can do, and those expectations need to be met. Realism is optional now. Learning the limitations of the system, and how to utilize them to maximize the platform are topics only nerds care about...

 

...it's funny. Even with accepting that this would be the case I was at least expecting we would get the Ep-13 cockpit controls first. But that's just nerdy realism details...

[TLTeo]

*sigh* Yeah, absolutely pointless addition tbh, and should not have happened given that NVGs require cockpit modifications. Next up we'll carry modern Mavericks or something because why not. The whole "pls give me more capabilities possible even if it's not realistic I need mooooooore" is dumb.

[Scandfox]

Why not make the Planer usable in Night Operation wth functional lights regarding Taxi\Landing, radar, EP13 instead of useless Bling-Bling,...what is next step..2engines,Multi-crew, carrier op..?? Just remove NVG or Heatblur is on the way to lose its face....

[Harlikwin]

The answer is reddit.

 

We had to make sure the Viggen was clubby37's favorite night jet... now you all get NVG's whether you like it not, realism or not.

 

I was thinking of making a post when I saw that, but I realized it wold probably be deleted or closed, and with support from many other users. inb4 "if you don't like it, don't use it."

 

Seems that's just the latest trend with DCS as it has gotten more popular as a platform. People don't want a study aircraft. They have expectations of what a combat jet can do, and those expectations need to be met. Realism is optional now. Learning the limitations of the system, and how to utilize them to maximize the platform are topics only nerds care about...

 

...it's funny. Even with accepting that this would be the case I was at least expecting we would get the Ep-13 cockpit controls first. But that's just nerdy realism details...

 

Ah yes, it would be hillarious to see what that cockpit would look like under nods without the requisite lighting mods. The Devs seriously need to stop this sort thing.

[Cobra847]

I'll propose a thought experiment :)

 

Say the AJS-37 was retired later than in reality, and had to continue to see stopgap use - especially in something like operating in a Caucasus theatre (somewhat far-fetched anyways).

We don't believe it unlikely that push come to shove, the ubiquitous nature of Nod's in aviation would lead to either field or factory modifications of lighting.

Generally, we draw the line at things like fantasy weapons or true aircraft features that did not exist. But a small piece of equipment that the pilot can bring onboard and mount on his helmet is rather benign. Moreso, it's certainly a reasonable thing that could have happened in reality - life and death tends to blur the line of regulation and whether cockpit lighting was optimal.

 

In the end, the choice to use them is entirely yours. This feature is not a stretch, but even if it was it has no influence on balance and it certainly doesn't impact the purists' experience. If it did, we'd probably think twice.

 

Just to clarify; I understand your guys viewpoints, but trying to see the Viggen community through the lens of making everyone's enjoyment of the aircraft better, adding them was a no brainer. :)

 

In the end, we like to add what you guys all enjoy, within reasonable limits. We didn't really add it for our own benefit- we barely get time to fly as it is- but if we can add some grayzone features that don't impact the product overall negatively and make a good chunk of folks happy, why not? :)

Edited November 19, 2020 by Cobra847

[IronMike]

It's also legitimate to make decisions based on playability in a video-game (as long as it gets communicated clearly and else does not impact the realism we seek after in the sim-genre). As Cobra mentions it is certainly not forced on anyone. And a little bit of imagination can sometimes go a long way. :-)

Edited November 19, 2020 by IronMike

[TLTeo]

The reason I'm not a fan of NVGs is that in general, those "reasonable limits" in my mind can be roughly defined as "where the experience of the module changes significantly". Having NVGs in night missions does change the Viggen experience quite significantly, because navigation obviously becomes immensely easier. I feel like if a Viggen driver wants to do a night mission, they should just learn their radar really, really well. I realize that it can be avoided (especially because it's one of those things that hardly impacts multiplayer), but it still feels cheap. I think this goes beyond something like "we'll implement TARPS, but only in a simplified way" for example.

 

edit: and yeah, thought experiments like that can be used to justify all sorts of things, like more modern AIM-9s being carried by Sabres, or APKWs being carried by Hueys and F5s, which I would also oppose for the same reasons.

[Grimes]

and yeah, thought experiments like that can be used to justify all sorts of things, like more modern AIM-9s being carried by Sabres, or APKWs being carried by Hueys and F5s, which I would also oppose for the same reasons.

 

The barrier for entry is a bit different. On one hand you need access to the aircraft, weapon system, and hope all the avionics play nice. On the other you can go to amazon, buy NVGs, and jump into any aircraft from the Wright Flyer to SpaceShipTwo and have roughly the same experience.

 

Push comes to shove you can delete the keybinds to activate the goggles and bask in the glory of self simulation superiority.

[Cobra847]

The reason I'm not a fan of NVGs is that in general, those "reasonable limits" in my mind can be roughly defined as "where the experience of the module changes significantly". Having NVGs in night missions does change the Viggen experience quite significantly, because navigation obviously becomes immensely easier. I feel like if a Viggen driver wants to do a night mission, they should just learn their radar really, really well. I realize that it can be avoided (especially because it's one of those things that hardly impacts multiplayer), but it still feels cheap. I think this goes beyond something like "we'll implement TARPS, but only in a simplified way" for example.

 

edit: and yeah, thought experiments like that can be used to justify all sorts of things, like more modern AIM-9s being carried by Sabres, or APKWs being carried by Hueys and F5s, which I would also oppose for the same reasons.

 

I agree! I think anyone flying the viggen should put in the time and learn the radar to be able to night-fly just like the Swedish pilots did. :)

 

That saiiiiid, I don't want that opinion to limit those who would rather experience the Viggen as if the pilot strapped on some NVG's in a hot scenario.

It's a win-win, really. Those who want that experience can have it- while the authentic one remains, untouched.

 

Hope our perspective makes sense

 

 

[QuiGon]

WTF???

 

Honestly, this really upsets me...

The Viggen has some really frustrating bugs that still need to get fixed and instead of doing that you add NVGs to a plane that never had them??

And what kind of argument is that: "If they would have continued in service they might would have gotten NVGs"?! With that argument even WW2 birds could get NVGs... :doh:

 

Please Heatblur, come back to your senses and stop adding fantasy features to aircraft that never had them. This is the kind of stuff that really drives me away from this "sim"... :mad:

 

Can server admins at least disable this stupid function on their servers (Cold War!)? I guess not...

You cater to some people on reddit that want to goof around at night, but forget about the people who want to fly realistic multiplayer missions at night. That says a lot...

 

It's also really frustrating to see how people with odd wishes on reddit get them fulfilled ASAP, while we, who report actual bugs on the official forums often don't even get an answer at all (I'm still waiting for the terminator maverick fix among others)...

 

Sorry for the tone, but this really hits a nerve for me :mad:

[ghostdog688]

If the usage was similar to the KA-50 or harrier where the crew chief has to “install” them, that makes sense. That way the mission editor can decide on availability.

 

But if we are talking fantasy loadouts, how about a photo recce pod to make the most of the “s” in the Viggen’s title?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scandfox]

Just let if there is a Heatblur Pilot (?) jump into a Viggen in Night Operation on a Military Airfield, Start engines, Taxi out in total darkness to active Runway, Fly Anti-Ship mission, Make a TILS landing at a Military Airfield with No

 

Center lights, Find the way to Tarmac, Make a Parking and Record this and let us all be impressed.

 

After this Video we all will be convinced that Viggen is fully optimized........

[draconus]

It's also really frustrating to see how people with odd wishes on reddit get them fulfilled ASAP, while we, who report actual bugs on the official forums often don't even get an answer at all (I'm still waiting for the terminator maverick fix among others)...

 

It's probably not a bug, just a feature catering to game playability. You can continue to use it realistically :thumbup:

I was wondering of hand grenades or MG for the RIO - think about CAS possibilities.

Edited November 20, 2020 by draconus

[Bananabrai]

I totally defend the position of Heatblur here, I will state why.

 

I think a lot of people don't realize, what not only could have happened, but what actually did happen without a lot of people knowing.

A great example.:

 

During the 1990s, the then still pretty new ECR Tornados of the GAF did a trial / flight test campaign in the US.

Now normally those test are conducted at the bigger airfields, but the tests were on a smaller airfield.

The purpose of the test was to try and evaluate a 'combat fitting' (Einsatzsofortbeschaffung) of towed radar decoys to it.

 

They were tested extensively, but they were never used again, no pictures exist.

No controls exist in the cockpit, although they could have been used in war time.

 

The same counts for NVGs in the GAF Tornado. Official support was not rolled out by EADS/MBB/Panavia/AIRBUS until ASSTA 3, but was used long before.

 

And another example.: I am working on the BOZ-101EC (FDS=Future Dispenser System). That one will come with ASSTA 4.1.

But for the Syrian air campaign it was used a long time before, on ASSTA 1 and ASSTA 3A/B birds etc.

 

Wikipedia is not always right. And POHs are not always right either. I know it, I have the docs here on my desk and they do not fit all times.

So please stop yelling for realism and stretching things, because things are streched for real as well. The military is not stupid, real pilots do yell about the need for certain things the way virtual pilots do.

 

By the way, it is quite a bad habit to justify the own need for total "realism" by directing others to learn their radar properly.

How would somebody read that who is really struggling learning it? Not everybody can afford the peripherals we have, or has time to invest.+

 

DCS is a sandbox. Used to stay in a "reality" bubble, use it for whatever you need.

Or stop flying the viggen at all in NAV mode, because it can not navigate on any map we have in DCS at the moment.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Bananabrai

[Scandfox]

Waiting for the Video

[Harlikwin]

@Cobra Can you guys at least make it like the F18/harrier where it has to be loaded so that MP servers can ban it to "keep it real".

[QuiGon]

I totally defend the position of Heatblur here, I I will state why.

 

I think a lot of people don't realize, what not only could have happened, but what actually did happen without a lot of people knowing.

A great example.:

 

During the 1990s, the then still pretty new ECR Tornados of the GAF did a trial / flight test campaign in the US.

Now normally those test are conducted at the bigger airfields, but the tests were on a smaller airfield.

The purpose of the test was to try and evaluate a 'combat fitting' (Einsatzsofortbeschaffung) of towed radar decoys to it.

 

They were tested extensively, but they were never used again, no pictures exist.

No controls exist in the cockpit, although they could have been used in war time.

 

The same counts for NVGs in the GAF Tornado. Official support was not rolled out by EADS/MBB/Panavia/AIRBUS until ASSTA 3, but was used long before.

 

And another example.: I am working on the BOZ-101EC (FDS=Future Dispenser System). That one will come with ASSTA 4.1.

But for the Syrian air campaign it was used a long time before, on ASSTA 1 and ASSTA 3A/B birds etc.

 

Wikipedia is not always right. And POHs are not always right either. I know it, I have the docs here on my desk and they do not fit all times.

So please stop yelling for realism and stretching things, because things are streched for real as well. The military is not stupid, real pilots do yell about the need for certain things the way virtual pilots do.

How about we base aircraf features and functions on actually known facts instead of speculating what could have been?? Isn't this how DCS is supposed to work?? Otherwise it just opens the door for all kind of bullshit fantasy features...

 

By the way, it is quite a bad habit to justify the own need for total "realism" by directing others to learn their radar properly.

How would somebody read that who is really struggling learning it? Not everybody can afford the peripherals we have, or has time to invest.+

So instead you make a "better" habit out of it and force other players, that want to enjoy a realistic flight sim, to compete against fantasy features in multiplayer? How really nice of you...

If someone struggles with the realism of a study sim like DCS then maaaaaaaaaybe he is playing the wrong game?

 

DCS is a sandbox. Used to stay in a "reality" bubble, use it for whatever you need.

That doesn't really work in MP, especially if even the admin can't disable such fantasy features. But as always you show total ignorance for the MP community...

It's also problematic in other regards, e.g. campaigns.

 

Or stop flying the viggen at all in NAV mode, because it can not navigate on any map we have in DCS at the moment.

That's just not true. We have at least 2 maps in DCS where the Viggen can navigate realistically.

[LG-Skyman]

I personally would like to avoid NVGs in the viggen for more challenge, but I do understand point of view of both parties. It was a quick wish, so they did it and it's similar kind of feature as 4 harms on f16 and moving reticle for ir missiles in mig21 (see? heatblur's ancesters did fantasy features before it was cool). And I'm guilty of using the latter, although I like realism.

 

Someone already pointed the mission editor as a fair solution: can't we just make an aircraft option in the me to equip the viggen with a nvg, even if the option would be enabled by default?

 

Mission creator will decide, if such help is allowed and we will all be happy. I haven't seen such a discussion about the mig21's reticle, which is totally client controlled. You can't disable it on the server side. It may be even a special option in game settings for single player.

 

A ME option is fair, quick, easy and such things were already done.

 

Wysłane z mojego MI MAX 3 przy użyciu Tapatalka

 

 

[Harlikwin]

 

That doesn't really work in MP, especially if even the admin can't disable such fantasy features. But as always you show total ignorance for the MP community...

It's also problematic in other regards, e.g. campaigns.

 

 

Yeah this is my biggest gripe. The whole, just don't use it argument falls flat in many MP servers where players will use every little edge they can get to be more competitive. And the server owner can't really control what works on an A/C or not, which is why I'm always on about having some server side options to disable certain features.

 

[Northstar98]

Yeah I'm completely with QuiGon, Harlikwin and TLTeo here, especially seeing as the cockpit controls for the EP13 aren't implemented (and for ages too) yet, as well as the kinda borked exterior lights. DCS' main appeal to me is that it's mission goal is to make as authentic aircraft as feasibly possible, but now we seem to increasingly be deliberately going against that, because apparently people pick up something that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles" (right there on the front page) but then have a problem with it being so...

 

Like what?

 

That and I get sick of this "if you don't like (insert unrealistic feature here) don't use it", how about if you don't like flying the Viggen at night, don't fly the Viggen at night?

 

If you find something too hard, maybe avoid doing until you can practice? No-one but :censored:are going to chastise someone for finding something difficult and asking for help or trying to learn something complicated.

 

 

I feel that, the day (if) we get a full fidelity ground vehicle module, if it's something like an M60A1, people will be demanding thermals because the M60A3 TTS had them and "if you don't like it don't use it"

 

So please stop yelling for realism and stretching things, because things are streched for real as well. The military is not stupid, real pilots do yell about the need for certain things the way virtual pilots do.

 

Stop yelling for realism, in software that's supposed to be as realistic as possible...

 

Okay

 

By the way, it is quite a bad habit to justify the own need for total "realism" by directing others to learn their radar properly.

How would somebody read that who is really struggling learning it? Not everybody can afford the peripherals we have, or has time to invest.+

 

Then why are they flying at night in the first place? Look if you don't have a lot of time, and therefore can't practice, maybe stay away from the difficult stuff, until you can practice?

 

And if you need help with something, you're already in the right place, tonnes of people ask for help on how to do xyz all of the time, and usually they get answers they're satisfied with. Failing that there's video tutorials and even the in-game ones too.

 

As for peripherals I don't have head tracking (use mouse look), I don't have a rudder (use keyboard), I don't have a throttle (also use keyboard, waiting for VKB to release TECS), and I play on a 15.6" laptop. I use a decent set of bluetooth headphones that work perfectly on a phone, but don't offer a lot of support for using the microphone and speakers simultaneously on Windows 10 (it's either one or the other, or I get degraded audio, works exactly the same for discord and DCS voice chat, i.e not at all/barely at best). I do however, have a fantastic flight stick.

 

My set up makes it impossible for me to simultaneously use stick and throttle or throttle and rudder, most of the time I manage by using my chin to move the stick while I make throttle inputs. It makes flying in formation impossible, air-to-air refuelling impossible, oh and have I mentioned warbirds, carrier landings or helicopters?

 

The solution to my issue is to stick with the things I can do, and only bite off what I can chew, I stay away from multiplayer for this very reason, and the only real A/A I do is simple BFM with relatively matched aircraft. That and a few easy strike missions. The rest of the time I'm just flying the aircraft while not doing any combat at all...

 

DCS is a sandbox. Used to stay in a "reality" bubble, use it for whatever you need.

 

Yeah, what mission you decide is up to you, but I don't remember being able to pick and choose specs on the aircraft...

 

And it's different when the actual, realistic features of the aircraft don't get implemented for ages (the flare switch on the canopy frame being wrong, and cockpit EP13 controls, neither have been implemented in like 3 years) but as soon as somebody wants something unrealistic, the knee is bent and the feature is implemented in a matter of days or by the next update.

 

Or stop flying the viggen at all in NAV mode, because it can not navigate on any map we have in DCS at the moment.

The Viggen's navigation system AFAIK supports coordinates as long as they're N/E, so every single map but Nevada...

[QuiGon]

as long as it gets communicated clearly and else does not impact the realism we seek after in the sim-genre

 

Where was this communicated btw?? Reddit? How about the official game forums?!

And yes, it does impact the realism I and many others here seek!

[Naquaii]

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/akt...jus-i-morkret/

 

I know not all of you read Swedish but that is the offical webpage for the Swedish Armed Forces describing night vision goggles. In there it says that it was first with the JAS-39C that the cockpit lighting was adapted for night vision goggle use but that they've been used for nearly 20 years. It then goes on to list them being used in the SK-60, helicopters and the Viggen.

 

That does ofc not mean that it was standard equipment but it was used. And having to content with too bright cockpit lights seems to have been a part of that.

[LG-Skyman]

 

 

 

Where was this communicated btw?? Reddit? How about the official game forums?!

(...)

 

It was officially documented in the changelog: https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/news/official-updates/201318-dcs-world-2-5-changelog-and-updates-of-open-beta&share_tid=201318&share_fid=74365&share_type=t&link_source=app

 

Wysłane z mojego MI MAX 3 przy użyciu Tapatalka