Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to argue wether if it's realistic or not.

Does anyone here know how would the ATAS symbology even look like?

The missile icons on the MPD? Is it displayed as ATA or ATAS on the labels? How would you uncage the missile? The A-A missile uncage button was replaced by the Target store button, so good luck finding another button for that.

Does it have a Seeker FOV circle on the ihadss?

What are their safety inhibits? Maximum lock range? Seeker gimbal limits? Can you use the SKR as an acquisition source? Does it need a special boresight page? Does it use the standard stinger missile audio tones or something else?

Do the missile icons have special BITs like on the Kiowa?

How does one superelevate the missiles? Symbology for superelevation?

..

You see, it's not just "adding the stingers", you need documentation to make them even remotely realistic.

Unless someone has the info (in which case, if you read this, please PM me), there is no way to implement them in a realistic way.

 

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

It controls availability, but it doesn't change an aircraft variant at all...

And no-one said it did. The point remains: the framework is there. It can be used. And the simple fact remains that there are already settings in the mission-editor that have the kind of impact and make a difference in the resulting mission that you imply isn't there.

 

You started out by saying you didn't understand why I kept bringing these settings up. As I keep explaining, in spite of your protestations, they do have an effect. It seems more and more like you're just trying to wriggle your way out of this annoying fact by moving the goalposts or going after ye olde strawmen… Stop it. It's unseemly.

 

Quote

Okay, so we don't care about variants at all anymore, and it only relates to payloads and nothing else?

“We?” “Anymore?” I never cared about variants. That is entirely your hang-up.

It relates to what the airframe is capable of carrying and what systems — in the very broadest sense of the term — it should have available depending on what the mission designer sets up as available in the mission, be it based on mission date or operator or just preference because it's an airquake server and no-one particularly cares anyway.

 

Quote

And what on earth are you talking about? Something being specific being used as a scapegoat, for a lack of data?

Yes.

 

We've seen it happen before, and it usually goes one of two ways depending on who's delivering the answer:

“No, we won't add X, because it's not available for this specific model/variant/batch/serial number/day of the week” — invariably followed by illustrations that disprove that notion, followed by a huge row, followed by a thread lock because such a bad argument only put fuel on the flames.

or

“No, we won't add Y, because our sources and SMEs aren't able to provide enough info on it” — invariably followed by the answer “oh, that sucks” and then nothing.

 

Arguing for it as scope limit could conceivably also work, but we won't know until they try, and it is weakened by the face of it by their pretty consistently choosing to not actually be all that specific after all…

 

Quote

Why can't the solution be, fix the inconsistency?

It probably could be, but you'd end up with an even less capable aircraft, and with a less compelling product. They probably add all these extra bits for a reason, after all.

 

Quote

If it is a lack of documentation, or some other infeasibility problem, then it isn't logical acrobatics

Buuuuuut, again, that is not the argument being offered, and that is exactly why it instead turns into said acrobatics.

 

Quote

So essentially, if it isn't 100% pure, any specificity is invalid and therefore it should be open to basically everything, at least where the payloads are concerned.

Not anything, no. Just the things that the airframe in question is actually able to field — especially if it's something with little (or even zero) opportunity cost to add because it's already in the game. And again, bonus points if it is then tied into the existing framework for restricting various bits of equipment.

 

Quote

I don't understand - the explicit goal is that the modules, assets and maps should be as realistic as possible, but the scenario is up to you. That's what I was referring to...

…and I'm saying that the way modules are designed as monolithic entities (for the most part — there are a few exceptions, curiously from one particular third party developer…), the building blocks to create that scenario are very much all or nothing, and this reduces the ability to make both them and the scenario as realistic as possible. The sandbox turns out to be filled with boulders rather than grains.

 

Quote

Except the "not realistic for this variant" is almost exactly accurate, it just applies to whatever specific variant they're doing, where it is actually true.

 

You just seem to think that because it's not 100% pure, the specific variant is invalid, and therefore the "not realistic for this version" is untrue. 

 

Only, if we are trying to get something specific, then it absolutely isn't wholly untrue.

That's a lot of double negatives. 😄

 

Again, the problem is that they aren't making a specific variant. By very definition, then, it is not 100% pure, and the supposed “this version” that [whatever] is not realistic for is entirely made up. Depending on your perspective the version they're referring to either a) doesn't actually exist, because it's one they've invented, or b) isn't the one they're making anyway, so what's realistic for that version isn't all that relevant anyway. It's a silly argument because it doesn't apply to what they're making, and as has been shown when you dig deeper and manage to squeeze a bit more transparency out of them, what they actually mean is “we don't have any data.”

 

So they should say that from the very start instead, rather than appeal to some realism that isn't there to begin with. And this is a pattern that keeps repeating for module after module…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see.

ED is modelling their LBA based on a specific US army AH-64D blk 2.

There is no info to prove that there is any sort of historical inaccuracy in the currently implemented systems.

An US army apache, as it is, cannot mount ATAS missiles, neither has the required hardware and software to fire them, I already explained the details on that.

It would be like adding AMRAAMs to the F-14A.

Besides, even if you ignore this fact, there is an evident lack of documentation on ATAS employment from late H-64 platforms.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Y'know, if I take our F-16CM into a late 80s mission (i.e pre CCIP), it doesn't magically become a baseline F-16C Block 50, with monochromatic green MFDs, mechanical HSI, with the JHMCS and MIDS switches removed. If I fly for an operator who fits there F-16s with Harpoons or parachutes, it doesn't magically get them - it's still very much a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa mid-to-late 2000s.

This.  This is the problem.  Yeah, there are variants and ages where things are changed.  But some changes are pretty big, so ED would literally have to make variants of the aircraft they are simulating.  It's not just the weapons hanging on the stations.

All arguments are literally affected by this.  For instance, if we want to put stingers or sidewinders on the Apache, we can't just stick them on, because the US Army is using that wingtip space for it's CMWS system.  So, it's a change not only in the wingtip space, but also a change in the cockpit, systems, etc.

It's too much, and we're breaking realism.

 

Now, I can see if ED would want to sell some variants of it's main module.  It might not take much work, and they could charge the owners of the main module like $10 for the variant.  I imagine they would sell quite a few.  And if someone didn't own the main module, and wanted only the variant, well they could charge them the same amount as the main module for just the variant.  I think that would satisfy a lot of people's griefs.

6 hours ago, Reticuli said:

ED are decent sim-makers and poor game-makers.

Hopefully it gets better when they release the Dynamic Campaign.  That should introduce a little more "game".

 

Now gamewise, I would love to see some smaller maps, with FAR more detailed terrain, and get a game like Crysis - Power Struggle going.  Maybe one day.

 

I really am hoping, that one day, after they have finished the "sky", and put out all the major aircraft, that they start looking more at the ground, vehicle simulation, and eventually, FPS.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Tippis said:

And no-one said it did.

 

So, you agree with me?

 

Quote

The point remains: the framework is there. It can be used.

 

So you should make a wishlist for it, and you should ask ED to go the full mile with the inconsistency and make a universal unicorn aircraft that has all the different systems and weapons available, which I'm sure will be as trivial a task as you make it out to be.

 

Quote

And the simple fact remains that there are already settings in the mission-editor that have the kind of impact and make a difference in the resulting mission that you imply isn't there.

 

When did I imply they aren't there? What are you talking about? I said they don't make an a difference to the aircraft variant or what the aircraft is supposed to represent - and would you look at that, they don't.

 

I even explained it, twice, and you ignored it - noticing a theme here...

 

Quote

You started out by saying you didn't understand why I kept bringing these settings up. As I keep explaining, in spite of your protestations, they do have an effect. It seems more and more like you're just trying to wriggle your way out of this annoying fact by moving the goalposts or going after ye olde strawmen… Stop it. It's unseemly.

 

Ah yes, here we go, the unjustified logical fallacies. Please let me know where I've made a straw man or move goalposts. Because it's very easy to bleat out logical fallacies, it's another thing to demonstrate how they're so.

 

Only it gets better because we've got some irony going on here, I never said they don't have an effect, I said they don't change aircraft into being something they're not and you even agree with me!

 

I wonder what fallacy it is, when somebody makes an argument, and then somebody twists it to be something else, so it's easier to attack...

 

Quote

“We?” “Anymore?” I never cared about variants. That is entirely your hang-up.

It relates to what the airframe is capable of carrying and what systems — in the very broadest sense of the term — it should have available depending on what the mission designer sets up as available in the mission, be it based on mission date or operator or just preference because it's an airquake server and no-one particularly cares anyway.

 

For god's sake Tippis - changing the payloads and systems is buy and large what changes the variant - it is often the major difference between variants - even if minor ones.

 

I thought you only cared about payloads, so you would want something that's even more inconsistent than it already hypothetically is (and so far you and DaemonPhobos seem to have some disagreement there).

 

But now it's systems too... So I'm going to call into question when you claimed it wouldn't add any significant workload.

 

Quote

We've seen it happen before, and it usually goes one of two ways depending on who's delivering the answer:

“No, we won't add X, because it's not available for this specific model/variant/batch/serial number/day of the week” — invariably followed by illustrations that disprove that notion, followed by a huge row, followed by a thread lock because such a bad argument only put fuel on the flames.

 

Okay, so you say it's logical acrobatics, but when you dig down the actual reason is a lack of data/documentation - something very reasonable.

 

I agree they should just say - look we can't give you xxxx because it's not feasible for us to model it for whatever reason.

 

And let's see an example for where the notion of 'xxxx isn't accurate' being disproved, because I can name several for where it absolutely is true.

 

The F-16 getting GBU-54, APKWS, drag chutes and CFTs - none of which are accurate for a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007; GBU-54 came on M6.1, APKWS integration came after M6.1, drag-chutes are a thing on export F-16Cs, not USAF/ANG ones (which would use field arresting gear) and finally, for USAF/ANG aircraft (which is what it's supposed to represent) CFTs are a thing on the Block 50+ so wrong variant.

 

There is stuff like the SLAM and Walleye, but as I understand it they were pathfinders for MITL weapons, the actual MITL weapon we should be getting is the AGM-84H/K - which is what we're getting anyway.

 

The LITENING was provided to give the Hornet a TGP, as it only recently got one that is semi-accurate (well, not really it should be getting Nite Hawk).

 

Quote

or

“No, we won't add Y, because our sources and SMEs aren't able to provide enough info on it” — invariably followed by the answer “oh, that sucks” and then nothing.

 

Which sounds completely reasonable...

 

Quote

Arguing for it as scope limit could conceivably also work, but we won't know until they try, and it is weakened by the face of it by their pretty consistently choosing to not actually be all that specific after all…

 

Tippis, the aircraft are by and large specific, they're just not 100% accurate to that specific thing, and I'm sure we can speculate as to why.

 

Once again, the solution should be to solve the inconsistency, only if we do that - your whole argument goes flying out of the window.

 

And even so, as I said before the inconsistencies seem to mostly be some inconsistencies with the exact year, in this case the exact year of our US Army AH-64D Block II doesn't really matter., because no US Army AH-64D Block II has Stinger ATAS, so if it were to get it, it would have to be even more inconsistent than it already allegedly is. 

 

Quote

It probably could be, but you'd end up with an even less capable aircraft, and with a less compelling product. They probably add all these extra bits for a reason, after all.

 

And it's an aircraft that is as capable as the real thing should be. What's the problem here, I thought realism was the niche of DCS? If it is supposed to be something specific, why should it have any other capabilities beyond what the RL aircraft has?

 

You're whole argument is that "well, it isn't specific anyway", though there's nothing to suggest it's going to have something inconsistent, which would mean it's representative of an aircraft with Stinger ATAS.

 

So even if it does have some inconsistencies, it would have to be even more inconsistent, if it were to field Stinger ATAS.

 

Quote

Buuuuuut, again, that is not the argument being offered, and that is exactly why it instead turns into said acrobatics.

 

Yeah, let's see an example.

 

But you've said that this is only a front to something entirely reasonable. So judge away on whoever's part, drumming up a bogus excuse for something that's actually completely reasonable.

 

But if the real reason is something reasonable (and it is), then what's the problem?

 

Quote

Not anything, no. Just the things that the airframe in question is actually able to field — especially if it's something with little (or even zero) opportunity cost to add because it's already in the game. And again, bonus points if it is then tied into the existing framework for restricting various bits of equipment.

 

And any US Army AH-64D isn't actually able to field Stinger ATAS - not without serious modification.

 

Quote

That's a lot of double negatives. 😄

 

Haha, and now we're venturing into point scoring with dubious relevancy, now where have I seen that before.

 

Was anything I said difficult to understand?

 

Quote

Again, the problem is that they aren't making a specific variant. By very definition, then, it is not 100% pure, and the supposed “this version” that [whatever] is not realistic for is entirely made up.

 

I think you misunderstand what I was saying.

 

You're argument as to why it isn't something specific, is that it isn't 100% accurate to that specific thing, if it isn't completely pure, it's completely invalid - all or nothing.

 

But if the goal is to get it consistent, then we should A.) fix the inconsistencies where we can and B.) keep things accurate to the specific variant.

 

It sounds like they're simply trying to achieve B, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

Quote

Depending on your perspective the version they're referring to either a) doesn't actually exist, because it's one they've invented, or b) isn't the one they're making anyway, so what's realistic for that version isn't all that relevant anyway.

 

Or c.) the version they're referring to does exist, and by and large that's what's being offered,

 

Quote

It's a silly argument because it doesn't apply to what they're making, and as has been shown when you dig deeper and manage to squeeze a bit more transparency out of them, what they actually mean is “we don't have any data.”

 

And what they actually mean is something completely reasonable...

 

Quote

So they should say that from the very start instead, rather than appeal to some realism that isn't there to begin with. And this is a pattern that keeps repeating for module after module…

 

What? If they're going for something specific, then the "appeal to realism" is completely accurate - it's more in line with what they're trying to do.

 

Just because what they've delivered isn't 100% accurate, doesn't mean it's completely invalid... And if there is a data problem (as you keep saying there is), then they're merely trying to get it as realistic as they can. Which in that case what's the problem?

 

Your argument is essentially "if it isn't 100% accurate to specific thing they're doing, then any specificity is bunk, and any attempt to try and keep it specific is bunk too", even though when you dig down, the reason for the inconsistency is something very reasonable.

 

It's almost like saying, well if x isn't 100% realistic to that variant then it can't be realistic to it at all. Now that is bunk, but hey, that argument (i.e as realistic as possible) has been ignored so many times now...

 

8 hours ago, 3WA said:

This.  This is the problem.  Yeah, there are variants and ages where things are changed.  But some changes are pretty big, so ED would literally have to make variants of the aircraft they are simulating.  It's not just the weapons hanging on the stations.

All arguments are literally affected by this.  For instance, if we want to put stingers or sidewinders on the Apache, we can't just stick them on, because the US Army is using that wingtip space for it's CMWS system.  So, it's a change not only in the wingtip space, but also a change in the cockpit, systems, etc.

It's too much, and we're breaking realism.

 

Exactly.


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

tbh. i don't see what this argument is about, the US-Army AH-64D is not technically capable of carrying ATAS. It is not like it just wasn't certified to use it like with the APKWS, it can't carry it phisically, nor does it have the needed software integration.

 

And lets be honest here, just carry some AGM-114L with you, and you'll be good with pretty much any slow flying threat out there.

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

So, you agree with me?

That does not follow, so no.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

When did I imply they aren't there?

When you said that things like mission date and participants is just things that you set in the ME and that "none of those things in DCS influence anything about systems, or weapons capability". That just isn't the case. When presented with examples of systems and weapon capability being affected by exactly that, you tried to rephrase your original claim and even outright move the goalposts rather than just accept that what you said was wrong.

 

Now you're trying to make it into a question of aircraft variant, and presenting a classic strawman + non sequitur combo, asking me to agree to something that was never actually said.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Ah yes, here we go, the unjustified logical fallacies.

They're not unjustified when they perfectly describe what you're doing.

"None of those things influence anything about systems or weapons capability" has morphed into "it doesn't change aircraft variant."

Your question if I agree with you on something that isn't even the topic of discussion.

And now, the idea that if I'm not saying that the ME is currently influencing variants, then I must somehow agree with you.

 

They all fit quite neatly into the classifications...

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Only it gets better because we've got some irony going on here, I never said they don't have an effect, I said they don't change aircraft into being something they're not and you even agree with me!

No, and no., in that order.

You did actually quite explicitly say that, and at no point have I said that I agree with you. That's just something you've decided that doesn't follow from anything I've said.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

For god's sake Tippis - changing the payloads and systems is buy and large what changes the variant - it is often the major difference between variants - even if minor ones.

You need to watch Wall*E less, although I can't really fault you on that one. 😛

And it was always about systems, but again in the broadest sense of the term. I used that phrase, and I've been using that term, for a very particular reason, same as why I keep calling them "airframes". Weapons are systems, after all.

 

And guess what? The game is already able to do that. So that bit won't add any extra workload. Adding in things that are already in the game for other platforms or in other forms also doesn't add much of a workload (APKWS is perhaps the prime recent example here).

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Tippis, the aircraft are by and large specific, they're just not 100% accurate to that specific thing, and I'm sure we can speculate as to why.

 

Once again, the solution should be to solve the inconsistency, only if we do that - your whole argument goes flying out of the window.

That is a solution. It is not the solution. And by the same token, the solution of letting the mission designer decide what systems are available, using the tools (existing or expanded) available, would make your argument go fly out the window. That's a pretty meaningless point to make, though, since that's the whole point of us two stating our respective cases: to offer a solution that makes the other guy's argument and suggestion go out the window. It's... just what argumentation is.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And it's an aircraft that is as capable as the real thing should be. What's the problem here, I thought realism was the niche of DCS? If it is supposed to be something specific, why should it have any other capabilities beyond what the RL aircraft has?

Well, kind of. Realism isn't really DCS' niche -- or at least it's not unique enough to DCS to really make it a niche. But beyond that, so much of the supposed realism ends up being feigned. It's something that is proudly proclaimed, but which starts to crumble once you scratch the surface.

 

And that lack of realism isn't really a problem, be it the game's supposed unique niche or not, since there are very good and pragmatic reason for not sticking dogmatically to that. The problem, as always, is the feigned:ness of it all, and not allowing the underlying facts play out to their logical conclusion: capabilities that are indeed realistic, if properly restricted, and lack of capabilities that aren't realistic, but which can reasonably be excused. It's two sides of the same coin.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Was anything I said difficult to understand?

Just needlessly convoluted to parse. 😄 

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You're argument as to why it isn't something specific, is that it isn't 100% accurate to that specific thing, if it isn't completely pure, it's completely invalid - all or nothing.

That is not my argument. And my complaint about sentences that are complex to parse will now bite me right back in the ass..

 

My argument is that the argument that it is completely accurate, is bunk, and consequently, any arguments that follow from that premise -- e.g. that we can't add X because this wouldn't be accurate -- are also bunk. We're getting a mish-mash, but there is this very odd and undefined line between what mish-mash is all fine and good, and what mish-mash is not. Note that neither of the mish-mashes are inaccurate, as such, just that they don't actually match the supposed thing that is supposed to be accurately represented.

 

It's not that the thing is invalid; it's the argumentation for its purity.

 

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Or c.) the version they're referring to does exist, and by and large that's what's being offered,

No, that's just b) again, since what has been offered isn't actually the thing they're making. I might have screwed up the referents there, so I apologise for that.

 

Basically,

They're offering to make X.

They're actually making Y.

And then the argument is that we can't add [whatever] to X because that's not realistic... except they're not making X, so what's realistic for that isn't all that relevant to begin with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

please stick to the topic, every time a weapon system comes up it is always derailed. 

We ask you to stick to the topic here which is stinger for the AH-64D. 

 

As the tags suggest it is not currently planned.

 

thanks

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

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

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ermm..

Exactly, what's the reason of you telling that the current aircraft is not accurate?

As of now

We have like... 4 cockpit screenshots, and one partial external picture, and basically no real info about date and lot.

We only know it's a blk 2 with M-TADS and CMWS.

I understand sometimes ED may mix different tapes and software to compensate for documentation gaps.

But calling the aircraft inaccurate at this stage is ridiculous.

Of course, the final product will not be a 100% accurate representation of the real aircraft, because there is a lot of stuff that isn't applicable to the DCS environment like have quick and SINCGARS radio mode, encrypted secure comms, in depth jamming simulation, ECS systems, etc.. 

But please, don't jump straight to conclusions, we dont know pretty much anything about EDs apache yet.

 

Back to the stinger topic.

There is no way to integrate stingers into this module without making it an unrealistic fantasy aircraft.

Because of:

A) unrealistic, completely out of context weapon system that requires hardware and software modifications to implement.

AH-64E V6s that, according to some unreliable reports, had the system integrated, don't use them on the wingtips, but on some special adapter on the pylons themselves, since, as we already know, 2 of the 5 CMWS EOMS are installed at wingtip panels.

2) impossibility of getting foreign Apache's manuals.

You won't be able to guess the symbology and weapon release procedures for this, I can guarantee, they are not plug and play.

 

 


Edited by DaemonPhobos
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2021 at 12:03 PM, Tippis said:

That does not follow, so no.

 

"Nobody said it did" - you were agreeing with me when I said that historical mode doesn't change an aircraft into something it's not. Correct? Because, that does seem to follow...

 

Quote

When you said that things like mission date and participants is just things that you set in the ME and that "none of those things in DCS influence anything about systems, or weapons capability". That just isn't the case. When presented with examples of systems and weapon capability being affected by exactly that, you tried to rephrase your original claim and even outright move the goalposts rather than just accept that what you said was wrong.

 

Erm, hang on; I said that the date and operator don't affect anything about systems or weapons capability and the reason for that I gave is that they can be made completely separate to each other, it's effectively arbitrary based on what you choose to do; I'm talking about the mission editor in general, and outside historical mode that statement is completely accurate - the choice to use historical mode or not is essentially arbitrary, it's up to you what you do with it.

 

However, when you said "They do if you click the button that makes them do so…" you're not talking about the ME in general; you're talking about historical mode exclusively. So I amended my position to address that instead - I am not "trying to rephrase my original claim and even outright move the goalposts" - I'm making a new argument. 

 

Unless of course, I'm not allowed to amend or make new arguments if you bring up something I wasn't specifically addressing.

 

And changing the aircraft variant is what you'd have to do for Stinger ATAS to be accurate.

 

Quote

Now you're trying to make it into a question of aircraft variant, and presenting a classic strawman + non sequitur combo, asking me to agree to something that was never actually said.

 

You are all over the place I'm afraid, maybe have a re-read a few times and then get back to me.

 

Fact of the matter is Stinger ATAS is appropriate to a different Apache variant; if it does get Stinger ATAS, we are changing the Apache variant.

 

As for the agreement bit, you seem to have completely taken it out of context, I said that historical mode doesn't change an aircraft into something it's not (talking about an aircraft variant becoming a historical variant), and your reply was "and nobody said it did". 

 

Quote

They're not unjustified when they perfectly describe what you're doing.

 

Only they don't perfectly describe what I'm doing, at all.

 

I've explained your alleged moving the goalposts - I made a different argument, and you (falsely) attributed it to me moving the goalposts, when I was in fact addressing something different, I was making a new argument in response to a different point and thus I'm not moving the goalposts. You were addressing historical mode exclusively, which my argument didn't apply to, so I amended my position to more precisely address yours (which again, concerns historical mode basically exclusively).

 

So now I'm interested in when I straw manned your position? That by the way is when I take your argument, twist it into meaning something else, and argue against that, pretending it's your argument.

 

Here's where I think it is:

 

Inconsistencies arise which means what's delivered isn't actually [whatever specific thing it's supposed to be], because it isn't 100% accurate. You then said that justifying something not being included on the grounds of realism is therefore bunk, because it isn't the specific thing anyway. Is that not your argument?

 

If it is, my counter to that is that it should be as accurate to [whatever specific thing it is] where possible to do so, implying that there maybe something that might be inconsistent, but so long as the reason for the inconsistency is reasonable (for instance because of a gap in data), that's fine - it absolutely still satisfies the 'as realistic as possible' we just came into something that wasn't possible.

 

It's like arguing that planes aren't the safest form of transport, because some of them crash - you can still have them be the safest form of transport even if some do crash, just so long as the equivalent deaths per mile (or whatever metric) is satisfied.

 

Likewise, something can be as accurate as possible, even if an element is inaccurate, just so long as it wasn't possible to make said element accurate. And here, that seems to be the case - you've said that inaccuracies arise due to a lack of data (though there maybe some logical acrobatics you have to dig through, to get to the real reason - which is a gap in data).

 

Quote

"None of those things influence anything about systems or weapons capability" has morphed into "it doesn't change aircraft variant."

 

I've explained it above, the former relates to the mission editor outside of historical mode, and the latter relates to historical mode exclusively.

 

I simply amended my argument. Though aren't those essentially the same thing when you dig deeper? Ultimately what influences capability is the aircraft variant even if it's as simple as what a certain operator uses.

 

A US Army AH-64D isn't able to use Stinger ATAS, but a license built Japanese one is. A US Army Apache being flown by Japan in the mission editor, doesn't change the systems or weapons capability - it's still a US Army Apache, the only thing it might have is a (fictional) Japanese livery.

 

So it hasn't changed the variant and the weapons capability and systems haven't changed. And that's what you'd have to do for Stinger ATAS. So what I'm saying is still accurate here.

 

If I use historical mode and take the Apache into a mission where only older weapons are available, and GPS satellites aren't available, you can still argue that the weapons and systems capability of the aircraft itself hasn't changed, just the availability of whatever weapons and GPS - the aircraft hasn't had any changes to its wiring or SMS system or whatever, and the GPS receiver is still there.

 

Practically speaking,  you can say is that it kinda approximates an aircraft without those weapons and without GPS, but then its no different from having the Apache in a mission dated appropriately for the specific variant, turning the GPS off and limiting the inventory of whatever warehouse - the aircraft itself hasn't changed, what it has available has. The above is just more restrictive with the GPS (and we should have some ability to jam GPS anyway).

 

However, sticking to what's actually relevant for Stinger ATAS - historical mode flies completely out of the window, because it doesn't matter what the date is, because Stinger ATAS isn't accurate for a US Army AH-64D Block II, regardless of the date; it has to be something other than that for Stinger ATAS to be accurate, and there is no indication that is.

 

Now you've said that the operator should influence what's available and what the aircraft is (essentially), but then ED needs to provide all of the different elements so it can be made accurate for whatever operator. So when flown for the UK for instance, the engines change to the RTM322, the ESM systems change to UK systems (as well as any other avionics - good luck with that), Hydra 70 gets replaced by CRV7 etc.

 

Unless you only go so far as payloads, but then it's inconsistent - and we're flying a fantasy aircraft that is much more incoherent than it already allegedly was, only now it's not realistic due to a lack of feasibility, it's not realistic by design. 

 

Quote

Your question if I agree with you on something that isn't even the topic of discussion.

 

You're the one who brought up your hypothetical aircraft changing with the historical mode. Whereby historical mode influences both payloads and systems - thereby changing the variant.

 

Right now historical mode only really changes what stuff is available - it doesn't do anything to the aircraft itself - it's still the same variant, with all the same capabilities, it's just certain weapons aren't available for it.

 

And right now, historical mode only further restricts the carriage of weapons, it doesn't facilitate adding new weapons - which is what you'd do here.

 

And to be honest, historical mode isn't even relevant here, because what governs Stinger ATAS capability depends on whether or not it's a US Army AH-64D, the year set in the mission editor isn't going to change that, it's only going to control whether or not the Apache is available or not. If it is a US Army AH-64D, then Stinger ATAS isn't accurate, and if it isn't a US Army AH-64D then it might be accurate.

 

Quote

And now, the idea that if I'm not saying that the ME is currently influencing variants, then I must somehow agree with you.

 

If you are saying that the ME doesn't influence the variant, which yeah - it doesn't - then you DO agree with me.

 

Quote

No, and no., in that order.

You did actually quite explicitly say that, and at no point have I said that I agree with you. That's just something you've decided that doesn't follow from anything I've said.

 

You really need to read your own responses a lot more then don't you?

 

I'll put it to you again "nobody said it is" - implying that what I was saying about it is indeed the case - I'm not sure what's so difficult here. 

 

Quote

You need to watch Wall*E less, although I can't really fault you on that one. 😛

 

Your arguments would be more effective if they made sense.

 

Quote

And it was always about systems, but again in the broadest sense of the term. I used that phrase, and I've been using that term, for a very particular reason, same as why I keep calling them "airframes". Weapons are systems, after all.

 

Not really addressing what I said but hey, it's nothing new.

 

Quote

And guess what? The game is already able to do that. So that bit won't add any extra workload. Adding in things that are already in the game for other platforms or in other forms also doesn't add much of a workload (APKWS is perhaps the prime recent example here).

 

But the thread is about Stinger ATAS and you mentioning whatever systems that are available - all of that will need to be made available in the first place, that's where the extra workload lies.

 

And how far do we go here? If it's up to me, if I fly our AH-64D for the UK will that make it a WAH-64D? Which will necessitate different engines, British ESM systems (good luck) and CRV7?

 

Or here's idea - how about ED try and deliver a specific aircraft, and let them stick to that, where possible?

 

Quote

That is a solution. It is not the solution. And by the same token, the solution of letting the mission designer decide what systems are available, using the tools (existing or expanded) available, would make your argument go fly out the window.

 

Provided you had a universal platform with everything under the sun, so you can decide which systems are and aren't available in the first place! Which spoiler alert - you don't!

 

Quote

Well, kind of. Realism isn't really DCS' niche -- or at least it's not unique enough to DCS to really make it a niche. But beyond that, so much of the supposed realism ends up being feigned. It's something that is proudly proclaimed, but which starts to crumble once you scratch the surface.

 

Yes, I am well aware of what DCS falls over on - the solution is to improve it and it doesn't mean the goal is invalid. If that is indeed the goal, we should at least be sticking to realism where its stated there should be, where possible to do so. And that concerns the assets, modules and maps.

 

Quote

And that lack of realism isn't really a problem, be it the game's supposed unique niche or not, since there are very good and pragmatic reason for not sticking dogmatically to that. The problem, as always, is the feigned:ness of it all, and not allowing the underlying facts play out to their logical conclusion: capabilities that are indeed realistic, if properly restricted, and lack of capabilities that aren't realistic, but which can reasonably be excused. It's two sides of the same coin.

 

So far, in the context of this thread, you've said that the inconsistencies arise from a lack of documentation - something very reasonable, I'll make a concession here purely because the solution is limited.

 

And here Stinger ATAS isn't realistic for what we're getting - it relates to a different Apache variant - you don't like this, so you think it's a straw man for me to talk about variants - when practically this whole discussion is about what Apache variant we're getting and what's accurate or not, for that variant.

 

Quote

Just needlessly convoluted to parse. 😄 

 

Well I do apologise for that then.

 

Quote

My argument is that the argument that it is completely accurate, is bunk, and consequently, any arguments that follow from that premise -- e.g. that we can't add X because this wouldn't be accurate -- are also bunk.

 

And who said it is 100% completely accurate again? You're not straw manning my position are you? 

 

I've said this entire time it should be as accurate as possible. And being as accurate as possible, we should stick to what is accurate for that specific whatever, and we should avoid adding things that are inconsistent with it where we can. Just because something else is inconsistent (which you're STILL failing to provide examples of) doesn't mean x should be to - that isn't how it works. Though you keep going down that route and it relies on ignoring the argument.

 

You've ignored this so many times now, it's beyond ridiculous.

 

Quote

We're getting a mish-mash, but there is this very odd and undefined line between what mish-mash is all fine and good, and what mish-mash is not. Note that neither of the mish-mashes are inaccurate, as such, just that they don't actually match the supposed thing that is supposed to be accurately represented.

 

I'm okay with inconsistencies if there are gaps in the documentation, what else are you to do? You either leave it absent or you try and fudge it in using something else.

 

It still satisfies "as accurate as possible", you just ignore the last 2 words.

 

Quote

It's not that the thing is invalid; it's the argumentation for its purity.

 

It should be as accurate as possible - that means avoiding things that aren't accurate - Hey like Stinger ATAS!

 

Just because it isn't 100% accurate, doesn't mean the "as accurate as possible" isn't satisfied. Again, it's like arguing that planes aren't the safest form of travel because some of them crash. 

 

Quote

No, that's just b) again, since what has been offered isn't actually the thing they're making.

 

You haven't once provided an example here - and you and DaemonPhobos seem to have a hefty disagreement here.

 

Quote

Basically,

They're offering to make X.

They're actually making Y.

 

More like they are making X, where they can. Where they can't there maybe elements that are inconsistent with X, which so far, as you've stated, seem to be a result of a lack of information on how to implement said element of X properly.

 

They are not suddenly making Y just because there's an element of Y present in an aircraft that is otherwise X.

 

And here, even if I grant you were getting Y, just for the sake of argument, the inconsistency here is in the exact aircraft year - Y is a US Army AH-64D Block II but the year is a mis-match (for the sake of argument).

 

But here Stinger ATAS is still inaccurate for Y!

 

Quote

And then the argument is that we can't add [whatever] to X because that's not realistic... except they're not making X, so what's realistic for that isn't all that relevant to begin with.

 

Again, I'm repeating myself here.


Edited by Northstar98

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
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

"Nobody said it is"

...and it doesn't follow from that that I agree with you.

 

Quote

I amended my position when you clarified what you meant, am I not allowed to do that?

Sure. Just understand that this is what it looks like from my end because I've been trying to be quite clear from the get-go. I can accept that all my fiddling with the ins and outs of the mission editor may have given me a perspective into how things are wired up that isn't quite as common as it should be, but based on our previous discussions, I thought you knew that what I was describing was possible, and how it was possible.

 

Quote

Fact of the matter is Stinger ATAS does refer to a different Apache variant - if you want to stick your fingers in your ears - that's on you.

And again, I have never stated otherwise.

I'm simply saying that these things could pretty trivially be handled by the framework that is in place for determining what is available and what isn't, and leave the mission designer to decide what any given mission, time frame, and mix of operators will involve. Everyone gets what they want.

 

The only problem that remains is the reasoning given by ED why this, that, or the other system is or isn't added to the (often questionable) mash-up that we end up with.

 

Quote

You're the one going on and on about historical mode that supposedly do something it should, when it doesn't, when something universal would be required before hand.

...except that it does. As it should. And it should do it even more, especially when it's pretty darn trivial to add that historical (past and future) capability into the mix.

 

Quote

Not really addressing what I said but hey, it's nothing new.

It addresses what you said, just not in the line-by-line format of statement and response. The bits I cut out were cut out because I do indeed address it in what I then post, even if that's not the order it was discussed in your post.

 

e:

39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Your arguments would be more effective if they made sense.

Ok, it was such a small detail that you might have missed it, so that one might be worth explaining. I was simply having a bit of fun at how you kept using “by and large” a lot, except this time, you accidentally wrote buy and large. Hence the Wall•E reference.

 

58 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

please stick to the topic, every time a weapon system comes up it is always derailed. 

We ask you to stick to the topic here which is stinger for the AH-64D. 

Just to be clear: we are sticking to the topic. The stinger for the Apache (or its absence), and the choice to include it (or not), sits at the heart of the matter. I understand that it would be neat if, once the official "yea" or "nay" has been handed down, all discussion stopped, but the underlying reasons for that official answer is still part of the discussion, and it's a discussion worth have exactly because every topic of the kind tends to go off the rails.


Edited by Tippis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Tippis said:

...and it doesn't follow from that that I agree with you.

 

Sure. Just understand that this is what it looks like from my end because I've been trying to be quite clear from the get-go. I can accept that all my fiddling with the ins and outs of the mission editor may have given me a perspective into how things are wired up that isn't quite as common as it should be, but based on our previous discussions, I thought you knew that what I was describing was possible, and how it was possible.

 

And again, I have never stated otherwise.

I'm simply saying that these things could pretty trivially be handled by the framework that is in place for determining what is available and what isn't, and leave the mission designer to decide what any given mission, time frame, and mix of operators will involve. Everyone gets what they want.

 

The only problem that remains is the reasoning given by ED why this, that, or the other system is or isn't added to the (often questionable) mash-up that we end up with.

 

...except that it does. As it should. And it should do it even more, especially when it's pretty darn trivial to add that historical (past and future) capability into the mix.

 

It addresses what you said, just not in the line-by-line format of statement and response. The bits I cut out were cut out because I do indeed address it in what I then post, even if that's not the order it was discussed in your post.

 

Just so you know, I accidentally hit save when I was nothing like finished with my post - which is why there was a massive long quote by you completely unaddressed.

 

Quote

Ok, it was such a small detail that you might have missed it, so that one might be worth explaining. I was simply having a bit of fun at how you kept using “by and large” a lot, except this time, you accidentally wrote buy and large. Hence the Wall•E reference.

 

Ah, I understand that now. I'll edit it.


Edited by Northstar98

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
1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Ermm..

Exactly, what's the reason of you telling that the current aircraft is not accurate?

As of now

We have like... 4 cockpit screenshots, and one partial external picture, and basically no real info about date and lot.

We only know it's a blk 2 with M-TADS and CMWS.

I understand sometimes ED may mix different tapes and software to compensate for documentation gaps.

But calling the aircraft inaccurate at this stage is ridiculous.

Of course, the final product will not be a 100% accurate representation of the real aircraft, because there is a lot of stuff that isn't applicable to the DCS environment like have quick and SINCGARS radio mode, encrypted secure comms, in depth jamming simulation, ECS systems, etc.. 

But please, don't jump straight to conclusions, we dont know pretty much anything about EDs apache yet.

 

Back to the stinger topic.

There is no way to integrate stingers into this module without making it an unrealistic fantasy aircraft.

Because of:

A) unrealistic, completely out of context weapon system that requires hardware and software modifications to implement.

AH-64E V6s that, according to some unreliable reports, had the system integrated, don't use them on the wingtips, but on some special adapter on the pylons themselves, since, as we already know, 2 of the 5 CMWS EOMS are installed at wingtip panels.

2) impossibility of getting foreign Apache's manuals.

You won't be able to guess the symbology and weapon release procedures for this, I can guarantee, they are not plug and play.

 

Exactly this.

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

All I will add is that if a 2002 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter as operated by the US Army could mount the Stinger ATAS without any software or hardware modifications, then it should be able to. Just because they were not used doctrinally shouldn't mean they can't be used in the sim. I mean it isn't like doctrine cannot change. That said, if a software change would have been necessary to allow Stinger ATAS to be used on the airframe then I think it is perfectly reasonable to exclude the option. Military doctrine should not be a limiting factor for the sim, only available documentation & airframe / software limitations intrinsic to the aircraft being modeled. 

 

Just my 2¢...

  • Thanks 1

Modules: FC3, A-10C, M2000C, MiG-21bis, F-86F, AV-8B NA, F/A-18C, F-14A/B, F-16C, F-15E, F-4E, A-29, Eurofighter Typhoon, A-6E, MiG-23MLA, Nevada, Persian Gulf, South Atlantic, Syria, Afghanistan

 

Specs: Intel i7 2600K, Nvidea GTX 980, 16GB RAM, NVMe SSD, Saitek X-55, TrackIR 5, Samsung Odyssey VR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sadly not a problem of doctrine, the US Army AH-64D both phisically and software wise can't carry ATAS. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is physically impossible for US AH64D block II's to carry ATAS. Its not a doctrinal decision. Block II upgrade came with the removal of the required connectors/wiring and put CMWS in its place.

And for the argument about DCS multiplayer being full of air threats, therefore requiring ATAS, remember you have to choose either CMWS OR ATAS, you can't have both. If I were send to a battlespace with lots of hostile air, I would pick CMWS over ATAS for my survivability every single time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that no CMWS means no flares too, because the payload modules are dependant of the CMWS ECU to work.

You would be restricted to 30 chaff only.

Integrating stingers requires:

Removal of CMWS EOMS

Removal of flare payload modules

Special pylon adaptor on the wingtips (you can see them often on Japanese ah-64DJP).

The Weapons processor has growth capability for ATAS missile capabilities, however, apparently it only has I/O interfaces on pylons 2 and 3 for air to air missile fire interlock commands, not on the wingtips.

A new missile uncage switch on the cyclic grip (current one is used a target store switch).

Probably new WP, SP and DP software that adds:

Display simbology for Seeker FOV, seeker lock, superelevation on the ihadss

symbology for missile icons, missile BIT tests and weapon selection on the MPDs.

New boresight page to input Roll, Az, El corrector values for the new pylons..

A connection between the stinger pylons and the CIU in order to provide missile audio tones.

An US army apache does not have most of that.

Also, there are no official numbers on FIM-92 stinger performance, maximum and minimum engagement ranges are contained in a classified supplement on their ground based MANPADS variant.

You can use the Kiowa manual in order to get a reference of what a real ATAS integration actually is in other aircraft...

To simplify things up..

Forget about the stingers.

They are laughable to any fighter jet you try to engage.

But you can engage helicopters with SAL hellfires just as well.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and the gun. Don't forget, Cobras routinely bagged F-15s with cannons way back in the 70s during an exercise designed to develop anti-helo tactics. If you're quick on the flare button, the heat signature of a helicopter is rather small, meaning heaters would be more likely to lose the lock (helo hunting with heaters is already difficult). ATAS is not exactly a super-effective AA system, Stingers are a threat to helos and the A-10, not so much to fast jets. If you want to kill aircraft, take the Hind, it can carry the R-60, which is a proper AAM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not sure if it was ever tested on the Apache, but on this US one, we can't mount on the wingtips because of CMWS already there.  Plus, the uncage button has been taken up by another function.

 

If we want Air to Air, ED will have to make an export variant of the model, like the German or Japanese AH-64.  They carry stingers if I remember right.

 

Maybe they'll do it.  I would think an interesting variant would sell well.  Of course, they might have different engines, etc. which would complicate things.


Edited by 3WA
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 минуты назад, 3WA сказал:

German

real

 

2 минуты назад, 3WA сказал:

Not sure if it was ever tested on the Apache, but on this US one, we can't mount on the wingtips because of CMWS already there.  Plus, the uncage button has been taken up by another function.


I haven't heard about tests aim-9 on Delta

i think the only option for y'all is Taiwanese Echo with ATAS and CMWS
but well u know

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Scatoogle said:

Instead of the Stinger, why don't we just put the AIM-9 on it? It isn't unprecedented.

 

Like the Stinger, the Sidewinder was only ever used in testing, and that was on A-models. In fact, as far as I know, it wasn't even fired from the wingtips, but from the outboard underwing pylon. Although there are some marketing photos out there of one of the very first AH-64A's sporting Sidewinders on wingtip launchers. But again, it was a mock-up to show potential buyers possible growth in the airframe.

 

16 hours ago, 3WA said:

Not sure if it was ever tested on the Apache, but on this US one, we can't mount on the wingtips because of CMWS already there.  Plus, the uncage button has been taken up by another function.

 

If we want Air to Air, ED will have to make an export variant of the model, like the German or Japanese AH-64.  They carry stingers if I remember right.

 

The Cage button was non-functional until 2012 when it was re-purposed for something else, but if ED is using a manual dated 2002, than that would mean anything fielded in 2012 or beyond would be out of scope since the 2002 manual was in use between 2002 and 2012. But I'm just basing that on announced info.

 

The Germans never operated Apaches, although I believe Singapore might have also fielded Stingers on theirs, but I'm not 100% on that one.


Edited by Raptor9

Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man.

DCS Rotor-Head

Link to post
Share on other sites

afaik its Japan and South-Korea that operated ATAS, not sure about Singapore. And I can supply info on ATAS and the SK export variant but is that a rabbit hole we want to go down in? If we can choose between CMWS and ATAS why not also AMASE? Why not HIDAS? Theres no end in sight. American version is being made and what were getting.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...