Jump to content

Excellent Viper patch ED! Can we talk about LAU-88 now?


Silvern
 Share

Recommended Posts

ED, thank you for the massive Viper patch and making that extra step towards realism. :thumbup:

 

Can something also be done about the inaccurate double and triple Mavericks on LAU-88 on stations 3 & 7?

It is not an operationally valid loadout for the Viper being simulated in DCS and therefore shouldn't be an option in the simulator.

 

I believe that this would be a beneficial addition to DCS, as it would encourage players to use realistic loadouts ( especially in multiplayer where 6x mavericks are a sight that is way too common).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the deactivation of HARMs on the inner pylons, this request is only fair and consistent. 

  • Like 3

Z390 Aorus Elite | i5-9600k @5.0Ghz | RTX3060 12GB | 32GB DDR4 | Windows 10 | Quest 2 | Warthog HOTAS | Sahaj 20cm Extension

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED, thank you for the massive Viper patch and making that extra step towards realism. 
 
Can something also be done about the inaccurate double and triple Mavericks on LAU-88 on stations 3 & 7?
It is not an operationally valid loadout for the Viper being simulated in DCS and therefore shouldn't be an option in the simulator.
 
I believe that this would be a beneficial addition to DCS, as it would encourage players to use realistic loadouts ( especially in multiplayer where 6x mavericks are a sight that is way too common).

How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden?

So you can have a mission where only 1 agm65 per wing is allowed, or 2 or 3.

This way everyone wins: those who wants to be "one man air force" and those who cannot sleep at night knowing that "one man air force" people exist.

ED could also call it "enforce the righteous realism upon those who err" checkbox, so it can make mission editors feel empowered.

Also: can we have this consistent across all modules, even 3rd parties?


Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rubberduck85 said:


How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden?

So you can have a mission where only 1 agm65 per wing is allowed, or 2 or 3.

This way everyone wins: those who wants to be "one man air force" and those who cannot sleep at night knowing that "one man air force" people exist.

ED could also call it "enforce the righteous realism upon those who err" checkbox, so it can make mission editors feel empowered.

Also: can we have this consistent across all modules, even 3rd parties?

 

 

I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.

These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok with this, as long as ED sticks with this philosophy and removes all the non "operationally valid" loadouts for other planes for their time period, including 3rd party. They can start with cancelling the BS3 module. Can't have KA-50's flying around breaking my immersion in 2021.


Edited by Crptalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.
These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.
 
 


 
I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.
These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.
 
 


And i don't see the sense in your proposal.
Because arcade players exist, and they enjoy the product even with 6 mavericks whether YOU like it or not.

Arcade/simulation liberties are even taken by ED, Just look at BS3, a "what if" of a prototype.

You, with your proposal are telling other people ,unrelated to you, how they should have fun, and this is illiberal.

The bit about: "These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks" is really golden.

As if Average Joe, playing singleplayer dcs on Friday night after a week of hard work is acting against nature by flying with 6 mavericks.

My proposal allows freedom of choice and believe me, you are not alone: there will be multiplayer servers oriented to full hardcore realism.

Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rubberduck85 said:

And i don't see the sense in your proposal.
Because arcade players exist, and they enjoy the product even with 6 mavericks whether YOU like it or not.

Arcade/simulation liberties are even taken by ED, Just look at BS3, a "what if" of a prototype.

You, with your proposal are telling other people ,unrelated to you, how they should have fun, and this is illiberal.

The bit about: "These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks" is really golden.

As if Average Joe, playing singleplayer dcs on Friday night after a week of hard work is acting against nature by flying with 6 mavericks.

My proposal allows freedom of choice and believe me, you are not alone: there will be multiplayer servers oriented to full hardcore realism.

Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk
 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not about what we like or don't like.

It is about what is realistic for F-16 Viper Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 as determined by ED.

 

ED has determined that AGM-88 HARM on stations 4 & 6 is not realistic for that time & place, and has disabled them.

Following that logic, same should be done for LAU-88 as Wags himself has stated that it is not a valid loadout.

 

If it was done for HARM, why should LAU-88 be an exception to this?

We need to have some consistency, either allow all erroneous loadouts or none.  
 

 

 

Source:

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i totally agree with @Rubberduck85 however i do wonder if double mavs are even that unrealistic. i was under the impression that double mavs on lau-88 were tested and cleared. all the discussion i've ever seen were about the validity of a maverick-triple on lau-88 and evidence seemed to hint at the fact that triple mavs were a functional loadout, only not cleared for service because of similar reasons to the a-10c maverick carry capabilities.

i don't want to derail that thread, but still want to be sure that OP knows what he is talking about.

 

*edit* it appears that he is not, as matt wagner's post was clearly about triple mavs, not double mavs. also from what i gathered over the years, triple mavs are a technical possibility. "our" f-16c could carry and fire them. the air force simply won't let them do it. that's soemthing else than the HARMS where the inner pylons are not capable of interfacing with the harm. get your fact straight, please.


Edited by twistking
  • Like 11

My personal wishlist after half a decade with DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
This is not about what we like or don't like.
It is about what is realistic for F-16 Viper Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 as determined by ED.
 
ED has determined that AGM-88 HARM on stations 4 & 6 is not realistic for that time & place, and has disabled them.
Following that logic, same should be done for LAU-88 as Wags himself has stated that it is not a valid loadout.
 
If it was done for HARM, why should LAU-88 be an exception to this?
We need to have some consistency, either allow all erroneous loadouts or none.  
 
 
 
Source:
 
 
Now it ain't about what we like or don't like? You explicitly mentioned arcade players and arcade way of playing, their mere existence ruining your personal immersion, influencing server missions. Had you refrained from such expressions i would have believed you.

By the very same logic (simulating USAF/ANG 2007 BLK50 viper) let's remove Greek and Turkish liveries, as they are not operated by US air force.

I'd go even further: let's make it impossible to play this module unless a 800€ force sensing stick is detected by the sim.

I really appreciate ED's renewed progress on the module, I don't care about "only" 2 harms, and it has been discussed to death that mounting 2 Mavs per wing is not valid because by 2007 the only thing they were bombing were middleastern insurgents. Still they are there, man hours of development have been sunk into it and I'm perfectly fine with it and thanks to ED i have the privilege of choosing to go John Rambo style or pretend to be part of an air force.

Again, do we want to simulate a warplane or a doctrine?
I say let's stop telling people what they should do, give options and live a happy life.

Regards



Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion we should also limit the amount TGPs per server to a realistic amount, same with missiles, count how many AMRAAMS are being fired by N00Bs breaking my immerion by firing at over 40Nm, yeah it's annoying to see N00Bs carrying 6 Mavericks and 4 CBU97 it's literally unplayable and I cannot bear it. 

  • Like 1

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

 

Any landing where the plane will fly again is a GREAT landing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to sort out this mess between the champions of "dogma" vs "technically possible" should be left to the player to decide via mission editor options and in case of multiplayer should be server enforced.

 

The amount of work that went into researching what is a valid loadout for the circa 2007 F-16 Block 50 Tape 7 that served in the ANG is very impressive and commendable. However, the larger part of the customer base does not care about the details such as "removal of umbilicals" or restrictions of loadouts at the squadron level.

 

Based on publicly available information and information from SMEs of other nations that operate F-16 about what is technically possible, when I create a mission on the Syria map and place an F-16 of:

 

Country USAF - I expect to be able to load LAU-88 on stations 3 & 7.

 

Country ISRAEL - I expect GBU-31 JDAM on stations 4 and 6.

 

Country TURKEY - I expect JSOW C.

 

Country GREECE - I expect AGM-88 on stations 4 & 6.

 

Cheers!

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know this topic has been done to death now. 

 

Our Viper is a F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007

 

The recent HARM changes are correct to real world. 

We have no plans to change the Maverick loadout as it is possible even if not a standard mission loadout. 

 

Thanks

  • Like 24

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

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

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb BIGNEWY:

We have no plans to change the Maverick loadout as it is possible even if not a standard mission loadout. 

Clear statement, thank you!

**************************************

DCS World needs the Panavia Tornado! Really!

**************************************

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USAF and Air National Guard probably don't run 3 just because it destroys fuel efficiency. F-16 is very light weight and each additional ordinance put on a pylon is going to affect the range more than 2 engine aircraft (the more ordinance you put on an F-16 causes fuel / ordinance to get ratioed more than other aircraft). And all the extra bits to attach 3 instead of 1 are going to affect range more also.

If the F-16 can do it and the mission calls for it then it is surly an ability that would be utilized irl when possible.

Air National Guard are defensive and strategically placed such that if the "Visigoths" were to come over the hill they could scramble and groundpound them with a "one man air force."

 

I'm always on board with having different rulesets selectable in the loadout screen to allow multiplayer servers to easily enforce more standard loadouts (and to inform newbie sim nerds what is standard as opposed to what is possible)

5 hours ago, Silvern said:

 

I don't see the logic behind this check box that you propose, as it would still permit the arcade players to carry an invalid loadout.

These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks and perhaps even influence server admins to enable LAU-88 on public servers, therefore allowing the lack of realism to continue.

 

 

IMO this is a valid concern-- I'm sure ED wants people playing the most realistic military flight sim to know that F-16s CAN fly with 3 MAVs a pylon but typically don't. It gives their players street cred 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rubberduck85 said:


How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden?
 

The checkbox is the best solution. It's already in the game and it provides information. One of the criticisms of allowing HARMs to be equipable but inoperable is that it's confusing. If the F-16 had checkbox options it could be explained what is realistic and what is not and why and also give us the ability to simulate other F-16 variants.

  • Like 4

[sIGPIC]http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk187/Exorcet/F-15singaturebaseACOmodifiedcomp-1.jpg[/sIGPIC]

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGM-154A+AGM-88C does not work? After starting all the AGM-154A, I switch to the AGM-88C, which hang on the suspensions 4 and 6, but it is impossible to shoot them. Maybe I missed something in the manual?

  • Like 1

GreyCat_SPb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, for some crazy reason they are now allowing unusable weapons to be mounted on hard-points to completely confuse everything. You have hit exactly the problem I thought there would be as a result. ED needs to either remove mounting AGM-88 on these points or allow them to be launched from them.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ASW said:

Thank you very much! I killed two hours of time trying to somehow run 88e with 4/6)))

 

But you feel much more immersed, right?

 

/s

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

As we all know this topic has been done to death now. 

 

Our Viper is a F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007

 

The recent HARM changes are correct to real world. 

We have no plans to change the Maverick loadout as it is possible even if not a standard mission loadout. 

 

Thanks

For the HARMs, I think they either should be not mountable on 4 and 6 as we are not running logistic missions to move weapons around or at the very least a clear indication when mounting them that they are not usable. I have no issue at all with restrictions based on what the aircraft is capable of, and in fact favor this. I do have an issue with the UI causing confusion to users as it is not reasonable for a user to have to reference outside game resources for every weapon being loaded on any given aircraft on the chance that DCS will allow unusable weapons to be loaded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be more reasonable then to not have the AGM-88C even available in the loadout menu for Pylons 4 and 6. I foresee that newcomers will continually go to load them there for months to come and not know why they are not firing.

At least put some kind of note there in the loadout menu perhaps.


Also, I did not do this very same thing last night 🙂


Edited by 104th_Crunch
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's frustrating, it's technically possible to use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification; nothing in the design that prevents it.

As far as ferrying HARMs on 4/6 -- that would be cool if we were in a whole-world sim and had a totally working INS system and a persistent dynamic campaign with warehouse system.

I'm just frustrated by this move to limit one jet for "realism" while allowing complete fantasy in other mods.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Dances, PhD

Jet Hobo

https://v65th.wordpress.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone will create a mod to enable HARM on 4/6 -- it would be like running the viper with CFTs. The community has proven itself more than capable of fixing mistakes and improvising solutions before ED gets to them.

While the 2007 ANG vipers don't have the wiring for HARM, it wouldn't be that difficult to install the wiring; and other partner nations have it.

The best thing I read in regards to this is a comparison with the Hornet -- hornet pilots IRL don't use the over-G paddle switch, nor do USN hornets use the Spanish litening TGP -- But there they are in DCS. Maybe those things should be removed for realism.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Dances, PhD

Jet Hobo

https://v65th.wordpress.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it works like this in real life, then it should be like this. In DCS WORLD, we fly one at a time. Rarely in a couple. Therefore, I want to hang as many missiles and bombs as possible under the plane.)


Edited by ASW

GreyCat_SPb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...