Jump to content

Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6


Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6  

285 members have voted

  1. 1. Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

    • YES - stations 4 and 6 should have HARM and Maverick
      99
    • NO - stations 4 and 6 should not have HARM and Maverick
      186

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ebabil said:

you do realise this plane is shown on many  countries in the sim with their own AF liveries

 

 

Do you realize a livery does not change anything beside cosmetics but wrong equipment does?


Edited by Desert Fox
  • Like 2

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In USAF/ANG F-16s, the wiring that provides HARM and Maverick video is not installed in stations 4 and 6. This means the weapons can be installed and ferried but they are not functional (which is why

And facts should always win the day.

Hello all,    We are reviewing the data again on the use of Viper stations 4 and 6 for HARM and Mavericks. We are considering many factors and data sources like reference documents and SMEs.

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

The team have to draw a line somewhere when creating modules, otherwise feature creep is endless 🙂

 

That's why folks are against anything "vague" or "has been tested" or "considered" or "theroetically possible"... frankenstein creep 😉 Keep it pure, if folks want some questionable stuff they can mod it in anytime. But you can't mod things out again once they are in.

  • Like 1

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, MarbleFalcon said:

Adding Harpoon and adding 4 HARM aren't same subject for F-16. There is no Harpoon for F-16 but now we already have HARM.

 

F-16 in general, Turkey and Greece at least strongly disagree here, Poland and some others might have them too but i did not dig deeper. Harpoon is a real thing on the F-16C Block 50... just not on the USAF/NG version we got. That's why we don't have it and it's good that way.

 

And i'm still waiting for ANY tiny evidence 4 HARM are a real thing on the Viper apart from this picture of an Edwards AB test flight from the 1990s probably that gets posted every time. A single time show-off does not tell anything about capabilities ("carry" does not equal "able to fire"). So why do we have it? 😄


Edited by Desert Fox
  • Like 1

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Revi said:

 

 

I hmm.. i believe you just lost your credibility here

 

But to be fair everyone is allowed to have a opinion right? That is why we have this poll in the first place, but i think we should stay a bit relevant here, the question is about the HARMs which for the specific model we have, apparantly, is not compatible with a pair of 4, so for me it is very simple, if it is not compatible then it is not compatible.

 

So talking about dragchutes, and what not is not very relevant, again, if people would like to see that kind of stuff, i assume some of us could potentially make a mod for it, but i do not feel like we should force it upon people

 

I guess you are the credibility rating authority here. 

If someone suggests playing ace combat just because CFT and Dragchute, Then I would like to know how "relevant" they are with a game that never need fuel or landing in the first place. And also I didin't propose cft and dragchute, ı just said i would welcome if those things are implemented too.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i5 9400F / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // CH Fighterstick - MS FFB2 - TM Warthog Throttle and Stick - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 4 and 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure why this is even in question tbh.

The wiring doesn't exist for those stations. Period.

 

If ED sat here, and modelled every weapon system that has been tested/loaded onto pylons real world - for DCS modules, we would never see a proper module completed. 

With this logic, we might as well let DCS F16C load every TGP under the sun... (various TGPs have been tested and flown on the Viper irl right?)

 

Voted hard no.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Furiz said:

Would you believe me if I said I worked on Viper for years and we have loaded 4 HARM occasionally when it was a short sortie?

Haha, no. There's more needed than just stating you have worked on F-16s. Add some technical details and background that is not publicly known, then I might consider it...

  

 

19 hours ago, Furiz said:

You are asking for ED to provide facts but you don't have any.

 

Yes, but I'm not the one saying the F-16 has this feature. In science (and pretty much everywhere else except religion) you usually assume something is NOT the case unless proven otherwise. I could also say that the F-16 can launch R-77 missiles. I bet you won't find any proof against that, because probably none of the F-16 documentation, even the classified ones, will state that the F-16 can't launch R-77s.

So yeah, I tend to "believe" that things exist after I have seen evidence of it. I have not seen any evidence that the capability of our F-16 to launch HARMs from the innermost stations exists. Even more, I have seen technical descriptions why it can not do that (missing specific wireing for video feed). I don't know about you, but to me this all is a much better indication that this it is not possible than that it is.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Thanks 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Furiz said:

Please read everything then comment. You clearly read last few posts.

 

I was commenting to a post from a person that asked ED to display facts, then I said where are your facts.

Cause they are only posting quotes from people that say they are military, I don't want to discuss that fact cause we can never know if they are military or not, and I am not asking for such credentials cause they won't post that and if even they do post that who can say those are legit here in the forums, I'm simply trying to point out that speaking here has no value since they cant prove anything without facts/credentials,

 

but they are loud in their cause, and they are just pushing their own opinion without displaying any fact or proof other than "I worked on it and I know".

Well that simply doesn't cut it for me and I hope it won't cut it for ED, I hope ED wont just take someones word no matter how much they know about systems etc...

that is why I'm speaking here, not cause I know a lot about it, I really don't, I just don't like when people try to bully something with constant spam.

 

in the end I'm happy with whatever outcome, be it 4 or 2 HARM as long as it is correct to a simulated aircraft.

I read what you said bro. It was still a valid question! 

I believe ED has their stuff together is all. If speaking here has no value, then why are we here? I've read the same things you have. I didn't see it as spam. I saw it as collective input. Information can come from a variety of sources. I post in the Supercarrier forum all the time as that was my craft. 

We are all here to help (most of us) is my point! And again, I trust the ED process. I'm sure they are not so dumb to get burned again!

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

SMEs that provide information to ED get their credentials checked.   ED had been burned a very long time ago.

Oh I believe it bro! 

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Correct, our SME's are verified. 

 

I would really love to hear what it is exactly, that they told ED about the capabilities of the stations 4 & 6!

If there really is credible evidence that the F-16 can launch HARMs from stations 4 & 6 then I'm all for it, but so far I haven't seen any such evidence.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Thanks 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

In science (and pretty much everywhere else except religion) you usually assume something is NOT the case unless proven otherwise.

In science especially you create a hypothesis from thin air and try to find evidence that supports it, if you find enough eligible authorities that support and accept your hypothesis, your evidence can't be proven wrong and there is no better hypothesis (more or stronger evidence for another theorie) then it is assumed as "current state of knowledge" until either someone comes up with evidence that your theorie is wrong or your evidence flawed, or someone comes up with more or better evidence supporting a different hypothesis and everybody agrees... We learn this in school, when we go through the "smallest parts all matter is made from" 7th grade it's "All matter is made of molecules", 8th grade we learn they were wrong "and there were these things called Atoms", but yet later we learn that actually matter is made from "neutrons, electrons, positrons, etc." and then someone says: "Quarks... because antimatter" and though science largely agrees that antimatter is a thing, I would like to see evidence in form of anything other than fancy hypothesis based on assumptions. 😇

So for the stations on the F-16... Well, what real evidence do we have? People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit. That's for both arguments, actually. So it's like in science. If the majority of peers agrees with your hypothesis...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shagrat said:

People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit. That's for both arguments, actually. So it's like in science. If the majority of peers agrees with your hypothesis...

 

Weird...Very Weird.

Don't you guys ever look at the available -1 and -34 on net, both for MLU and HAF?? I've seen referenced here, in this forum several times. Are they "documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit"?

I don't think so...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, shagrat said:

People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit.

 

With this stance we would never have any evidence ever. One could post as many -1s or other docs and it would still not be sufficent. Nothing would be...


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MROK73 said:

Are they "documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit"?

I don't think so...

 

Are you making a challenge, that who can doctor the most funniest official documentation?

The problem is not that they can't look real, as it is actually easy thing to do as you modify just the few pages as you want.

 

But the problem is that you would need to get that exact file to multiple places to be found by anyone else, so they would think it is the real deal by the source.

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

And ... "why" ... anyone would spend time doing this! Come on ...

 

As MROK73 said, grab a -34 on the Web, and see by yourself.

 

 

ASUSTeK ROG MAXIMUS X HERO / Intel Core i5-8600K (4.6 GHz) / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 / 32GB DDR4 Ballistix Elite, 3200 MHz / Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB / Windows 10 Home 64-bit / HOTAS Cougar FSSB R1 (Warthog grip) / SIMPED / MFD Cougar / ViperGear ICP / Track IR 5 / Curved LED 27'' Monitor 1080p Samsung C27F396 / HP Reverb G2 VR Headset.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LC214 said:

This is a decision that should have been made months ago.

 

Why?! ... Fixes comes every updates. (I do not remember how many times I changed/modified the DB of another sim to match the new information gained and along some RL tapes updates).

 

For instance, the fact that the landing gear handle behavior is basically false doesn't mean that is can't and should not be fixed ... later on (in fact, as soon as possible because currently, it is "dramatically unsafe").

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

ASUSTeK ROG MAXIMUS X HERO / Intel Core i5-8600K (4.6 GHz) / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 / 32GB DDR4 Ballistix Elite, 3200 MHz / Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB / Windows 10 Home 64-bit / HOTAS Cougar FSSB R1 (Warthog grip) / SIMPED / MFD Cougar / ViperGear ICP / Track IR 5 / Curved LED 27'' Monitor 1080p Samsung C27F396 / HP Reverb G2 VR Headset.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dee-Jay said:

 

Why?! ... Fixes comes every updates. (I do not remember how many times I changed/modified the DB of another sim to match the new information gained and along some RL tapes updates).

 

For instance, the fact that the landing gear handle behavior is basically false doesn't mean that is can't and should not be fixed ... later on (in fact, as soon as possible because currently, it is "dramatically unsafe").

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LC214 said:

Why bother taking it away after already adding it. This is a decision that should have been made months ago. Voted yes.

 

Because it's never too late to correct wrong things. Plus: a tolerated wrong thing is an easy argument to get in another wrong thing. If people really want wrong things in, they can mod them any time.

19 minutes ago, LC214 said:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.

 

Like said, they can just mod it in if they really want it.

(Besides that i doubt folks buy a module solely based on the fact it can 4 HARM 😄 Nice strawman.)

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 32 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | DCS dedicated @ WD Blue 500 GB SSD | Win 10 (64-bit) | TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

 

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | Full Fidelity Su-25A | Asset packs (80s Iran, Lebanon 1982, Syria 2011+ factions)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LC214 said:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.

Mmm ... in fact you're right. Money.

This is quite sometimes THE problem indeed. This is why some ppl prefers to work for free, so that money is not an issue in producing an accurate F-16 simulation.

 

However ... DCS aims quality also, I am sure about that. It is simply a matter of passion. It can't be only about money.

And ditto Wags in his intro video of the DCS F-16 module just before its release: " ... will set the benchmark in F-16 simulation".

So I hope that it will be. Still lot of work ... but I am patient and try to be confident and I think that, if some ppl bought the F-16 just because it can load 4 HARMs and not because it is an F-16, IMHO, they have simply badly chosen their horse.

 

Regards.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

ASUSTeK ROG MAXIMUS X HERO / Intel Core i5-8600K (4.6 GHz) / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 / 32GB DDR4 Ballistix Elite, 3200 MHz / Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB / Windows 10 Home 64-bit / HOTAS Cougar FSSB R1 (Warthog grip) / SIMPED / MFD Cougar / ViperGear ICP / Track IR 5 / Curved LED 27'' Monitor 1080p Samsung C27F396 / HP Reverb G2 VR Headset.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LC214 said:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS

this must not be a person interested in airplanes

 

so why should we care again?


Edited by probad
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

With this stance we would never have any evidence ever. Once could post as many -1s or other docs and it would still not be sufficent. Nothing would be...

Definitely not, just that the document is judged not by itself to be "legit", but by who provides it and how many accept it as legit.

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Are you making a challenge, that who can doctor the most funniest official documentation?

The problem is not that they can't look real, as it is actually easy thing to do as you modify just the few pages as you want.

 

But the problem is that you would need to get that exact file to multiple places to be found by anyone else, so they would think it is the real deal by the source.

The problem is the official documents e.g. Squadron SOP, mission planning documentation with specific loadouts, especially if we talk unusual loadouts in "unusual missions" won't be mass distributed on the internet, what makes the fact, that you find documents in several places more credible? Basically because you trust the website, the distributer, the guy posting, etc.

That's what I meant. We take documentation and information as legit, because we (as individuals) trust the source. If a majority trusts the same source we assume it's credible.

That doesn't necessary mean that it is 100% accurate. I've seen a lot of newspapers, but also well researched military books mix up things from aircrafts types to weapons, smaller details wrong or major f... ups.

What puzzles me is the notion that "others need to bring evidence and proof to me that there statement is correct" while I myself of course make statements "that are correct and credible, unless you proof me I am  wrong".

The real question with the HARMs is: if we assume the F-16C (this particular model) hadn't been enabled/upgraded to use them, is it just the wiring and Software changes that won't change anything other than our imagination, or would it require different switches, MFD stores page etc. If it's just our imagination, there is a simple solution: note the true to life loadouts in the manual and whoever wants timeline correct realism can set the loadouts accordingly and people who fly this specific version of the F-16C on Caucasus, over Iraq or Normandy/the Channel can adapt a mission specific loadout. No harm done... 😎

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LC214 said:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.


If this hypothetical person bought the F-16 solely for the purpose of having 4x HARMs, they should have done more research. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

The State Military (PACAF/ANG Commander)

af710.png

FIEND 710 F-16C 90710 36th FS
Col A. “Loco” Cohen
http://www.statelyfe.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BIGNEWY locked this topic
  • BIGNEWY unlocked, locked, unpinned and unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...