Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am simply wondering if all the promised weapons (see below linked post) are still on the table? A lot of them are missing from the EA/out-of-EA roadmap.

Examples of missing weapons:
- Walleye I (we have the big Walleye II only)
- AGM-45A/B Shrike
- Mk 40/63 Mines

- Mk 77 Fire Bomb
- ADM-141 TALD

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if we got fire bombs or mines at this point. Would require some major new technologies in DCS Core.

Virpil WarBRD | Thrustmaster Hornet Grip | Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle | Logitech G Throttle Quadrant | Genovation 683U | VKB T-Rudder IV | TrackIR 5

 

 

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB | 32GB DDR4 3200 | SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only two with any hope are Mk77 Napalm and the ADM-141 TALD.

 

ED said in the newsletter they're working on effects for 'Fuel explosions' - this might tie in with the effects needed for Mk77. They're also still on cards whenever this question pops up.

 

Likewise for TALD's - they're never ruled out when asked, and indeed are already included (sort of, not very effectively) with the F-14.

 

Wave goodbye to Walleye I and Shrike. Not enough interest and questionable applicability to the period our Hornet exists in.

 

Personally I'd like to see sea mines make an appearance latter down the road. Prob much latter, and only if wider mining mechanics are included with core DCS. They would provide a unique gameplay addition to Hornet missions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to the mines as it will mandate increased work towards ASW, and they will be the first dedicated ASW weapon in DCS, it'll just be difficult to get practical use out of them without something like a dynamic/persistent campaign.

 

TALD would be great, as that's another expansion into EW, though there's still some work to do for them.

 

Mk77 looks like we're missing a few features in DCS, like being able to burn foliage and raze structures, while both have damage models (you can get trees to catch fire in DCS, and sometimes they disappear, it maybe isn't ready for incendiary weapons yet).

 

With the Shrike and the Walleye I, they're weapons that aren't representative of the timeframe of the Hornet, so not sure why they're on there to begin with, same for the Walleye II ER/DL and AGM-84E (and even LITENING), though these would be nice additions if we got an earlier variant or a different aircraft (an A-7E is in development, they'll also be useful on the A-6E by Heatblur (even if AI)).

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

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

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

ADM-141 TALD, Mk77, Mk-40 and AGM-45 has present as 3D models into DCS World main directories. Missing the implementation and funtionality. Has a GATOR CBU-78 mine disperser with mines BLU-91 and 92 mine not announced (Mi8Pilot talk on Mi-24 interview with ED dont have implemented yet a minelaying system and mine use).


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Thanks 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

With the Shrike and the Walleye I, they're weapons that aren't representative of the timeframe of the Hornet, so not sure why they're on there to begin with, same for the Walleye II ER/DL and AGM-84E (and even LITENING), though these would be nice additions if we got an earlier variant or a different aircraft (an A-7E is in development, they'll also be useful on the A-6E by Heatblur (even if AI)).

 

I really like having the possibility of doing a Gulf War scenario, hence all of these weapons (Shrikes, Walleyes I/II but mostly I and SLAM) are of particular interest to me. According to documentation, all these weapons were still software and hardware compatible with the Hornet (even though they were out-of-stock/retired by 2005).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toilet2000 said:

 

I really like having the possibility of doing a Gulf War scenario, hence all of these weapons (Shrikes, Walleyes I/II but mostly I and SLAM) are of particular interest to me. According to documentation, all these weapons were still software and hardware compatible with the Hornet (even though they were out-of-stock/retired by 2005).

 

Oh yes, they absolutely are, fully in fact. And I am absolutely with you on older scenarios, and why those weapons are of interest.

 

But I think we need to be consistent with the rules here; there's a thread on the F-16 getting APKWS because it technically doesn't need anything new to launch them; the common answer is no because it doesn't fit on a F-16 that's supposed to represent a 2007 version.

 

If we're going to be strict about the year on one aircraft, I think it's fair that the same should apply to other aircraft for consistency.

 

The best option in any case is to have a historical variant that can recycle as much from the current aircraft as possible.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

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

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

If we're going to be strict about the year on one aircraft, I think it's fair that the same should apply to other aircraft for consistency.

 

The best option in any case is to have a historical variant that can recycle as much from the current aircraft as possible.

Best case scenario is that we ignore as much we can politics, religion and real history. As already all those are things that will not be achieved, can't be enforced or even made.

Because it would mean that we need real historical mission information, all the modules to be in exact configuration and capabilities as in those historical events, and all those are based to political decisions (what weapons you can use, what weapons are available to be used, what weapons are assigned for what squadron or fighter wing, or what weapons one specific airframe ever used in that time).

 

Only thing that matters is technical compatibility.

If the weapon X is compatible with the aircraft so it can be loaded to it and launched, so be it.

 

It is then the mission designer who is responsible to create the scenario. Every aircraft, weapon and so on requires that there is metadata of:

- When the weapon was available.

- What countries had the weapon.

- What branches had the weapon.

 

The mission designer is free to decide do they try to follow those information, or do they go for what they want in their fictional scenarios.

The studio producing the weapons or aircraft are responsible to add that information, and they are only required to provide official weapon loadout for their vision of the time, country, politics and branch, but mission designer is free to create a new loadouts from all the weapons that are technically compatible with the airframe.

 

If someone want to fly Hornet as Russia would fly it, so be it.

If someone want to fly Hornet as much as it would be in 1992 elsewhere than at Gulf, so be it.

If someone want to fly Hornet like they want it, so be it.

 

Official training tutorials, campaigns, missions etc can follow what ever the studio wants. They have the creative freedom to make their wanted missions. But so should be with everyone who has access to mission editor that they can create their visioned scenarios, even when it would be wild ones like the "Museum Relic" campaign.

 

Expecting that studios would be required to offer all possible minor and major variants just so that someone can fly something in real historical accuracy is just unachievable.

I would like to see technical variations like Mi-24D, V and VM. I have talked that it could be funded by requiring first module as base module that is used to research and development of the project, and then all other variants after that are optional individual or stacked ones that needs to be purchased for little extra on the base module price. So example Mi-24P that is otherwise same as Mi-24V with just WSO cockpit changed and gun added to side, would be the base module, and rapid development for the changes in WSO cockpit to get a V would cost base + V-variant. Then later it could be developed the D variant that has elsewhere changes and to get it, it becomes the Base + V + D. This way studio could fund more variants that are minor with changes. So not likely to see a F/A-18D as additional to F/A-18C. But one could see a F/A-18C Lot 20 as Swiss configuration that costs $19.99 extra or Finnish configuration that costs $9.99 extra.  If the F/A-18A would appear, it could be $49.99 as extra to C that is the base model.

 

But that doesn't eliminate the technical compatibilities. If the aircraft is technically capable for something, it should be so, regardless politics, history and religion.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Expecting that studios would be required to offer all possible minor and major variants just so that someone can fly something in real historical accuracy is just unachievable.

 

This is not what I'm going for, at all. I'm not expecting to get every single aircraft under the sun. In reality a single other variant would suffice. In the case of this, and the F-16C, the work needed by the studios is very small; they should be able to recycle about 95% from their current module directly - straight up copy and paste; most of the stuff workload would probably be removing stuff.

 

An early F/A-18C would be essentially identical to the one we have now, maybe a slightly earlier RADAR (if that) and a different CM control panel (one they actually did the work on in an early cockpit render).

 

It just wouldn't have some weapons as well as MIDS, Link 16 and JHMCS. 

 

Preferably you'd only do variants if feasible and preferably recycling as much as possible, and with both the F-16CG Block 40 or an early F/A-18C the work required is kept to a minimum - it's arguably less work than what Heatblur are doing with their Tomcats, and far less work than what Aerges is doing with the Mirage F1.

 

Quote

I would like to see technical variations like Mi-24D, V and VM. I have talked that it could be funded by requiring first module as base module that is used to research and development of the project, and then all other variants after that are optional individual or stacked ones that needs to be purchased for little extra on the base module price. So example Mi-24P that is otherwise same as Mi-24V with just WSO cockpit changed and gun added to side, would be the base module, and rapid development for the changes in WSO cockpit to get a V would cost base + V-variant. Then later it could be developed the D variant that has elsewhere changes and to get it, it becomes the Base + V + D. This way studio could fund more variants that are minor with changes.

 

I absolutely agree, it is the perfect way of going about it bar none. And I too would like to see a V or maybe even a D; the V is basically identical to the P apart from the turret; and was the most produced variant, and is arguably more iconic, even if its gun isn't as good.

 

And after a V, maybe a D, it's basically identical to the V apart from essentially a single weapons system AFAIK. Though it might have different engines, though I imagine the practical differences in DCS is trivial.

 

Quote

But that doesn't eliminate the technical compatibilities. If the aircraft is technically capable for something, it should be so, regardless politics, history and religion.

 

Let's keep this discussion to the other thread.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

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

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some of you guys hate when this is pointed out, but I have to note this:
"Note that this is all very much subject to change for our mid-2000s F/A-18C USN Hornet."
 

While all these weapons we do hope to get done, its still based on many factors, and some may drop off, and some may be put on hold until whatever issue holding them back is solved. So I don't think the word promised was ever used, we will do our best to give as many cool weapons and features to make the DCS: F/A-18C the most complete simulation ever offered.

spacer.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I know that some of you guys hate when this is pointed out, but I have to note this:
"Note that this is all very much subject to change for our mid-2000s F/A-18C USN Hornet."
 

While all these weapons we do hope to get done, its still based on many factors, and some may drop off, and some may be put on hold until whatever issue holding them back is solved. So I don't think the word promised was ever used, we will do our best to give as many cool weapons and features to make the DCS: F/A-18C the most complete simulation ever offered.

Thanks Nineline for chiming in. That was actually my question to begin with: what's the state on that list, promised or not? If it was certain that they would be implemented, I wouldn't be asking the question. It was really just to know the stance of ED on that list, including:
- Are there already weapons that were pulled off the list? (since the current plan for EA and out-of-EA does not mention some of them)
- Are there weapons that we don't already have that are already confirmed to be coming? (an example would be the SLAM-ER, but unsure about the H/K version).

 

Thanks!


Edited by toilet2000
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...