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

[Spurts]

The whole "DCS is an Arcade/Video Game vs Simulator" debate is hilarious.  Someone should go let the USAF know that their A-10C flight trainer is just an arcade.  There are aspects of DCS that are rougher simulations than others, but DCS is a Simulator.  it Simulates the real aircraft and, more importantly, their subsystems to a degree no one would ever care to do in a "Game".  Is everything in DCS 100% accurate?  Of course not.  Some things are still holdovers from LO-MAC, some things are classified, but development on DCS never ceases.  It is always evolving into a more accurate and higher fidelity Simulator.  And by the way, a SIMULATOR tries to SIMULATE reality.  It is not ever a PERFECT replication of reality.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Digitalvole said:

Makes good sense, though regarding integration I’m still wondering how much work it is to, for example allow our f16 fire 4 harms? And if in an emergency this would be done as needs must. I mean most of the scenarios\campaigns we play would be considered a pretty dire situation if they were happening for real.

 

Well, this depends on who you ask:

 

VIFF will tell you it's a simple task of just installing the umbilical.

Scrape will tell you its a "herculean effort" and a substantial amount of rewiring.

 

But in a real situation, if they need an F-16C package to have 4 HARMs, they'll probably just take 2 aircraft, and if they need more, they'll take more still. Don't forget in a RL situation you've got other assets, and EW for instance.

 

1 hour ago, Digitalvole said:

But then this opens a whole can of worms doesn’t it? If WW3 kicked off, apart from the fact the northern hemisphere would be a burning wasteland in very short order, all sorts of things might be happening that we thought weren’t possible. And trying to include all that is rightly not in the remit for the DCS F16.

 

I agree, this is why I think the best bet is to pick an aircraft (I don't really care which), and then get a module to be as accurate to that, as it is, where feasibly possible to do so. It sets out a clear plan with a clear scope and a clear goal, and it should be easier to check for instance.

 

1 hour ago, Digitalvole said:

I think if I were asked to chose the right approach for us simmers, I would go with the checkbox idea but still needing to meet the criteria you listed. Simply because that way everyone can fly the missions how they want, where as the other way is only pleasing for whatever percentage of people are not happy with it now. Seems fair, but life is never that simple eh? 

 

I would still say that having the variant is more preferable.

 

For instance, I would really like a baseline, pre CCIP F-16CG Block 40, for reasons I describe in this thread. But instead of just giving us LANTIRN (w. the coupled TFR) and the wide angle HUD on our current block 50 (which would be inaccurate AFAIK, obviously the HUD would be but not sure about LANTIRN), I'd rather just have that variant.

 

1 hour ago, Digitalvole said:

Id still like to know if in the virtual world of DCS something was to happen like in the example I gave with the Tornados in Desert Storm, whether that would constitute a different version of aircraft.

 

I mean IRL there have been conflict specific modifications to aircraft, the ones I can think of are the Avro Vulcan B.2 (modified to equip AN/ALQ-101, as well as the AGM-45 Shrike as well as the reenabling of the AAR probe if I'm not mistaken), there were a fair few British aircraft modified for the Gulf War too.

[Digitalvole]

Thanks for answering my questions Northstar98, much appreciated. Kids are back from school now so my brain must now be used for the pressing issues of the day. Which seems to be how long can we keep a balloon from touching the ground!

thanks for the convo

[randomTOTEN]

3 hours ago, darkman222 said:

I dont know if I missed it, but mentioning it in the changelog would be nice too.

You missed it.

You also missed the update post specifically about it.

[Northstar98]

47 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Thanks for answering my questions Northstar98, much appreciated. Kids are back from school now so my brain must now be used for the pressing issues of the day. Which seems to be how long can we keep a balloon from touching the ground!

thanks for the convo

 

No worries!

[Hawkeye91]

7 hours ago, Smoked said:

I think it also has to do with the 88 was never certified for firing off of 4&6... I could be wrong... It was flight tested to carry it, but never certified/granted to deploy it... Hence why there are no photos of operational squadrons running those stations with 88's on there... None that I have seen at least... 

What sucks was probably never an operational need to use 4 HARMs IRL because IRL you could have an entire squadron of 12 to 24 F16s doing SEAD if it was against a real SA10 level SAM threat with defenses. When we're playing SP, we're saddled with dumb AI, and you're lucky to get them to work properly. In dynamic MP servers, well good luck getting more than 1 person to join you because a lot people just want to do their own thing in the MP servers, and finally the only real option is to join a squadron which can be a large time commitment, which a lot of us don't get with our work/life schedules and need to be able to play on our own time. So as of right now, SEAD is basically dead (no pun intended) with the F16 for me if I don't have the ability to self saturate an SA10 site to try to get through the defenses. I'm not longer even excited for the HTS or jammer pod now because the lethality of only using 2 HARMs solo is basically null. This has really killed my enthusiasm for the F16.

[Hawkeye91]

On 7/22/2021 at 11:42 PM, Silvern said:

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).

Maybe we should removed the F18 Lightening pod while we're at at it. How about the entire Black Shark 3? Or you could, you know, not care what other people do and watch your own bobber, and mind your own business? Maybe its good to let people experiment with loud outs and learn things that loading up on 6 mavericks will make the F16 a real pig, just like how you can overload the A10C and make it a pig by taking too much. Maybe we should remove all forms of fun experimentation from the game and only allow strict "approved" load outs and limit everyone's experience to what you think is the proper way of doing things? Sounds like a real healthy change for the community. Great insight. Well done. ViFF hit the nail on the head that this mentality is basically wanting DCS to be a doctrine simulator. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Hawkeye91

[Spurts]

my experience with SA-10 has been that HARM is useless.  I would fire 4 from an F/A-18 and each one would be shot down.  The only reliable way to drop an SA-10 for me was to get stupid low and bomb the radar with something small, like a CBU, SE, or even rockets.  Then take out the launchers at my leisure.  

[Bunny Clark]

Some people's idea of DCS "realism" = every conceivable option, no operational limitations. 

[Hawkeye91]

12 minutes ago, Spurts said:

my experience with SA-10 has been that HARM is useless.  I would fire 4 from an F/A-18 and each one would be shot down.  The only reliable way to drop an SA-10 for me was to get stupid low and bomb the radar with something small, like a CBU, SE, or even rockets.  Then take out the launchers at my leisure.  

This missiles don't get shot down every time. Depending on how heavily the missions designer defended the site with SA15s/19s. The goal of saturation is to either get lucky and sneak a missile through these defenses with is basically a dice roll and having 2 harms is 2 less chance rolls to make this happen, which when solo is a big difference, or to burn through their ammo which is limited.

[Bunny Clark]

30 minutes ago, Spurts said:

my experience with SA-10 has been that HARM is useless.

HARMs will absolutely disable an SA-10 site, but you'll need more than 4. A volley of 8 will reliably take out the tracking radar if the site does not have any Tor units. If it does you'll need to add about 2 missiles per Tor defending the site in my experience. 

[Munkwolf]

1 hour ago, Bunny Clark said:

Some people's idea of DCS "realism" = every conceivable option, no operational limitations. 

 

I've read in other threads that at least the Israeli Air Force runs harms and guided bombs off 4 & 6?

 

There are valid points on each side of this debate - no need for the snarkiness. Restrict the module as a whole to the USAF ANG version being specifically modelled? Or provide flexibility so that it could be used (still in a realistic manner) as other countries have employed the Viper?

 

Similar to the recent AGM-65 restrictions for the Harrier (that were rolled back). In both cases, on one hand, yes, these restrictions are realistic for the specific variant being modelled for the specific timeframe it's being represented in. On the other hand, it provides more flexibility, and is still realistic, if that view is broadened a bit to include how the airframe in question was employed by other operators in other times. Then put the restrictions in by what country the airframe is being flown under, or at the content level with the campaigns/missions/mp servers.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Munkwolf

[Jester2138]

Adding my voice (again) to those who say they want to play Digital Combat Simulator, not Digital Air National Guard Circa 2007 Simulator.

[Agrrregat]

I understand this way of realism that ED want to achieve, but big part of community came here for F-16 because their homecountry AirForce has this jet.

Maybe ED should make $10 upgrade to multinational version of plane with combination of i.e. Israelian/Turkish/Polish etc changes: CFT, chute, JSOWs C, Harpoons?

In that way more players will be happy to get their dream plane in similar configuration like their country?

 

ok, ok, I know that many countries have blk 52+, but still if weapon can fit and be used by on our blk50... just saing.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Agrrregat

[SparxOne]

5 hours ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Maybe we should removed the F18 Lightening pod while we're at at it. How about the entire Black Shark 3? Or you could, you know, not care what other people do and watch your own bobber, and mind your own business? Maybe its good to let people experiment with loud outs and learn things that loading up on 6 mavericks will make the F16 a real pig, just like how you can overload the A10C and make it a pig by taking too much. Maybe we should remove all forms of fun experimentation from the game and only allow strict "approved" load outs and limit everyone's experience to what you think is the proper way of doing things? Sounds like a real healthy change for the community. Great insight. Well done. ViFF hit the nail on the head that this mentality is basically wanting DCS to be a doctrine simulator. 

 

 

Yes, and i think you might have forgotten the totally valid operational F18 loadout also known as the "One man Navy" where they go out with 10 Amrams and 2 9Xs. Clearly something you see around the world as totally operationnally valid ! 

[==Wiggy==]

On 7/23/2021 at 2:56 AM, Smoked said:

I pointed this out in another thread... ED builds the base model and perhaps down the road they open up different blocks, tapes, weapons. (at a cost)... 

 

Yes.  I would 100% pay for equipment upgrades for a reasonable price.  Like please....give us the small mouth blk 42/52.  WAR HUD option, SCORPION JHMCS (although I think this should just be used by default since it's ANG already).  blk 52 PW -229 engine, CFT's, drag chute extensions.  Just make them all.  Make all the options in Blk specific upgrades.  So if you wanted a blk 52+ - bam, here's the equipment upgrade.  If you wanted a fictional blk 40/42, here's a WAR hUD.  etc etc.

Edited July 24, 2021 by 000rick000

[DuncanXP311]

The most pressing issue out there is the fact that any player can fly the F-16, it's not realistic because look at real life applications to be pilots and then look at how many manage to graduate in fighters. It just doesn't fit and ruins my immersion seeing soo many fighter pilots (not realistic), more than limiting the weapons ED should limit the amount of F-16s to a more accurate degree, like out of 1000 DCS users only 10 manage to score enough to fly the F16 and thus can use it. 

Also what ruins my immersion is the fact I cannot use the pee-bag in flight, this is a very concering issue as I know many pilots who did IRL and it kinda bothers me not being able to, you can check with your SMEs and they can confirm this.

 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, DuncanXP311 said:

The most pressing issue out there is the fact that any player can fly the F-16, it's not realistic because look at real life applications to be pilots and then look at how many manage to graduate in fighters. It just doesn't fit and ruins my immersion seeing soo many fighter pilots (not realistic), more than limiting the weapons ED should limit the amount of F-16s to a more accurate degree, like out of 1000 DCS users only 10 manage to score enough to fly the F16 and thus can use it. 

Also what ruins my immersion is the fact I cannot use the pee-bag in flight, this is a very concering issue as I know many pilots who did IRL and it kinda bothers me not being able to, you can check with your SMEs and they can confirm this.

 

Ladies and gentleman, kin of all phyla, I present to you: a straw man.

 

I mean is it really worth addressing this?

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Munkwolf said:

I've read in other threads that at least the Israeli Air Force runs harms and guided bombs off 4 & 6?

 

There are valid points on each side of this debate - no need for the snarkiness. Restrict the module as a whole to the USAF ANG version being specifically modelled? Or provide flexibility so that it could be used (still in a realistic manner) as other countries have employed the Viper?

 

Well, the F-16CM as depicted is supposed to represent a USAF/ANG F-16CM.

 

And before anybody says "but what about liveries".

 

A.) They're fictional liveries.

B.) They don't change the module into a country specific variant, no matter how slight.

C.) Enforcing USAF/ANG liveries would mandate locking out the livery files, which sounds like a brilliant idea (not).

 

15 hours ago, Munkwolf said:

Similar to the recent AGM-65 restrictions for the Harrier (that were rolled back).

 

The problem there is that RAZBAM initially had a mid 2000s Harrier II, and then after they said it had released, they decided that they would change the aircraft to a mid 2010s Harrier II (which is accurate for APKWS, GBU-54 and LITENING G4 that they also added semi recently) and so decided to remove the AGM-65F.

 

This was reversed because it's ridiculous - you don't make an aircraft that's supposed to be x and then after it's been released change it into y. You should pick an aircraft variant, and if you want to, an operator or a specific timeframe, and stick to it.

 

What they should've done if they wanted to go down the route they're going down is provide a mid 2000s Harrier II and a mid 2010s Harrier II, the former with AGM-65F and the latter without, but having LITENING G4, APKWS and GBU-54.

 

[PickleMonster]

I think this argument has run it's course.  The "give me my Harms back" crowd have painted themselves into an absurdist corner and are doing much better at countering their own arguments.

[Northstar98]

26 minutes ago, PickleMonster said:

I think this argument has run it's course.  The "give me my Harms back" crowd have painted themselves into an absurdist corner and are doing much better at countering their own arguments.

 

What I don't get is people buying a module that are stated to be something realistic, on a platform where realism is the goal (at least as far as the building blocks go), but they have a problem with realism...

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hawkeye91]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

What I don't get is people buying a module that are stated to be something realistic, on a platform where realism is the goal (at least as far as the building blocks go), but they have a problem with realism...

 

Strawman eh? Pot meet kettle. None of us have a problem with realism. We just think that realism doesn't have to mean pedantic rivet counting details as a stupid umbilical is enough reason to limit capabilities. We can put the Lightening pod on the cheek station of our F18 which in the USMC doesn't have the wiring for, why doesn't ED remove that and why aren't there forums screeching for that removal too? I certainly don't care its there. If people want to use it there, fine more power to them, it literally has zero impact on my experience? Know why? Because it ain't my damn business how people want to enjoy their time nor do I care. Just like you shouldn't try to enforce what YOU think your standards of realism should be on anyone else. You do you, I'll do me. You should leave it at that, and stop trying to advocate for changes that objectively make other's experiences worse for such petty rivet counting.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Strawman eh? Pot meet kettle. None of us have a problem with realism. We just think that realism doesn't have to mean pedantic rivet counting details as a stupid umbilical is enough reason to limit capabilities.

 

So, the problem is realism, when it's inconvenient to you. You don't have a problem with realism so long as its something you like, and if it isn't it's "petty, pedantic rivet counting".

 

You're taking something that's realistic, and having a problem with it, that is by definition having a problem with realism - not such a straw man now is it?

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

We can put the Lightening pod on the cheek station of our F18 which in the USMC doesn't have the wiring for, why doesn't ED remove that and why aren't there forums screeching for that removal too?

 

Not sure what the Hornet has to do with this thread but sure, why not. LITENING was only implemented in the first place to give the Hornet a TGP, as we only recently got ATFLIR. The USMC only operates LITENING from the centreline, and you've got ATFLIR on station 4.

 

Though I'm going to agree that we should be consistent about the rules here.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Know why? Because it ain't my damn business how people want to enjoy their time nor do I care.

 

This keeps cropping up, that somehow I'm telling people what the valid way of using DCS is, and it's just confusing to me, y'know why?

 

Because I'm physically incapable of caring how you fly your aircraft, or what missions you take them into, or where it's set, or where the AO is, or who's fighting who, or where you takeoff, or where you land, or what the date is, or what the time is, or what livery you're taking, or what difficulty options you're using blah blah blah blah - physically incapable of caring.

 

If having modules that's more realistic isn't enjoyable for you, that's absolutely fine! I bet you'd have a problem doing things I find enjoyable, hey, that's fine too! Just maybe you're making a mistake playing a module envisioned to be realistic, on a platform where the goal is to have as realistic modules as possible.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Just like you shouldn't try to enforce what YOU think your standards of realism should be on anyone else.

 

Bloody hell, it's not my  standard of realism, it isn't what I think either...

 

Taken right from the main page, in the first paragraph of DCS' description:

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

And what was said about the F-16CM in particular?

 

"We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

So if the goal is realism where possible, and our F-16 is supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 fitted for M5.1, then why should it be anything other than exactly that? 

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

You do you, I'll do me. You should leave it at that, and stop trying to advocate for changes that objectively make other's experiences worse for such petty rivet counting.

 

Yes, how dare they make an F-16CM, that's y'know, more accurate to the real thing, on a platform where "as realistic as possible" is the goal.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hawkeye91]

43 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

So, the problem is realism, when it's inconvenient to you. You don't have a problem with realism so long as its something you like, and if it isn't it's "petty, pedantic rivet counting".

 

You're taking something that's realistic, and having a problem with it, that is by definition having a problem with realism - not such a straw man now is it?

 

 

Not sure what the Hornet has to do with this thread but sure, why not. LITENING was only implemented in the first place to give the Hornet a TGP, as we only recently got ATFLIR. The USMC only operates LITENING from the centreline, and you've got ATFLIR on station 4.

 

Though I'm going to agree that we should be consistent about the rules here.

 

 

This keeps cropping up, that somehow I'm telling people what the valid way of using DCS is, and it's just confusing to me, y'know why?

 

Because I'm physically incapable of caring how you fly your aircraft, or what missions you take them into, or where it's set, or where the AO is, or who's fighting who, or where you takeoff, or where you land, or what the date is, or what the time is, or what livery you're taking, or what difficulty options you're using blah blah blah blah - physically incapable of caring.

 

If having modules that's more realistic isn't enjoyable for you, that's absolutely fine! I bet you'd have a problem doing things I find enjoyable, hey, that's fine too! Just maybe you're making a mistake playing a module envisioned to be realistic, on a platform where the goal is to have as realistic modules as possible.

 

 

Bloody hell, it's not my  standard of realism, it isn't what I think either...

 

Taken right from the main page, in the first paragraph of DCS' description:

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

And what was said about the F-16CM in particular?

 

"We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

So if the goal is realism where possible, and our F-16 is supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 fitted for M5.1, then why should it be anything other than exactly that? 

 

 

Yes, how dare they make an F-16CM, that's y'know, more accurate to the real thing, on a platform where "as realistic as possible" is the goal.

 

You're so far off the mark with your argument. The point is we disagree with what should be considered realistic, not that we don't want realism, and we're making the point that it doesn't have to be down to the nitty gritty pedantic rivet counting details to be realistic like you, and ED recently with the Viper, want. The reason the Hornet is brought up is we're pointing out the hypocrisy between ED's design philosophy between the aircraft. They cherry pick what is allowed and what isn't based on arbitrary accuracy reasons. Hence the the Spanish Lightening pod on the Hornet. Why is the Hornet afforded that level of "forgiveness" for an arguably much more unrealistic option as being able to put a cheek mounted Spanish pod on the Hornet which would need the entire wiring system, yet the F16 can't have HARMs on 4/6 because of a stupid dongle. 

 

What you're doing is belittling our argument down to the fact that we don't want realism when in fact we are arguing what is realistic in terms of what should be allowed (which you don't have a good argument for) and to us its not unrealistic to put HARMs on 4/6, and if its such a massive problem for people like you that want to play doctrine simulator, DONT USE IT.

 

And the reason that we bring it up to mind your business isn't that you don't want the on 4/6 because its unrealistic to you, because we both know you just won't use it. You don't want us to use it or see us using it. Which is something you should learn to get over and stop caring how people play with their airplanes and stop advocating for something that already has zero impact on your enjoyment of a module.

 

Also think about this. With this level of pedantism, where will it stop? When I bought this module and started using HARMs, I was under the impression I would be able to use 4, now due to little niggling details, we get 2. In what world would anyone be able to predict this, except for SMEs. What's next on the chopping block for some obscure detail? "Sorry guys, we're taking away Mavericks because no USAF/ANG squadron owned the racks to be able to mount them."(this is just a hypothetical, don't get your jimmy's in a twist about it) When does it end? How many features are we going to have axed for tiny details that we cannot forsee?

Edited July 24, 2021 by Hawkeye91

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

You're so far off the mark with your argument. The point is we disagree with what should be considered realistic, not that we don't want realism, and we're making the point that it doesn't have to be down to the nitty gritty pedantic rivet counting details to be realistic like you, and ED recently with the Viper, want.

 

Oh, so now what's realistic or not, is subjective?

 

It doesn't matter what reality actually is, if it's something we like, then it's realistic, and if reality is something we don't like, then implementing it shouldn't be considered realistic. Have I got right?

 

And again, what's patently obvious here, is that you don't want realism and have a problem with it, when it's something you don't like. How is that not the case here? I mean, you have a problem with it to the extent that you don't even consider it to be realistic, as if reality is dependent on what opinions you and I hold - spoiler alert: they don't.

 

I mean seriously, this is literally flat Earth levels of reasoning here, where what's true or not depends on what our opinions of it are, if we don't like it, it's false and if we do like it it's true.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

The reason the Hornet is brought up is we're pointing out the hypocrisy between ED's design philosophy between the aircraft. They cherry pick what is allowed and what isn't based on arbitrary accuracy reasons. Hence the the Spanish Lightening pod on the Hornet. Why is the Hornet afforded that level of "forgiveness" for an arguably much more unrealistic option as being able to put a cheek mounted Spanish pod on the Hornet which would need the entire wiring system, yet the F16 can't have HARMs on 4/6 because of a stupid dongle.

 

Then we should be consistent with the rules then, shouldn't we?

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

What you're doing is belittling our argument down to the fact that we don't want realism when in fact we are arguing what is realistic in terms of what should be allowed (which you don't have a good argument for) and to us its not unrealistic to put HARMs on 4/6, and if its such a massive problem for people like you that want to play doctrine simulator, DONT USE IT.

 

How difficult is it exactly?

 

We have a video game, whose goals is realistic modules and assets where feasibly possible to do so and we have a module that is explicitly stated to be specifically x. If we 2 and 2 together, why should our module be anything other than x?

 

This is the 3rd time I've asked this and no-one seems to be able to answer it...

 

And if you have a problem with a module being x, then isn't the obvious solution to not purchase x? I mean, it was pretty up front what ED intentions were, and DCS has had the same description up on the front page for as long as I can remember.

 

Let's take an example, I'm not really interested in RAZBAM's Harrier II, because it isn't the variant I'm interested in - solely my subjective opinion. What I'd rather do is just get the variant I'm interested in, not try and morph the existing Harrier II into something it's not.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

And the reason that we bring it up to mind your business isn't that you don't want the on 4/6 because its unrealistic to you, because we both know you just won't use it.

 

It isn't unrealistic to me. It's unrealistic full stop, what is or isn't realistic, isn't dependent on how I feel about it or what I think about it.

 

There are plenty of things I want our F-16 to have, like LANTIRN for instance and an autopilot coupled TFR. But that (at least AFAIK) isn't realistic for the module we've got, so it's perfectly reasonable that those things aren't included.

 

If I want LANTIRN for instance, I'd rather ask for the variant that has it, rather than try and combine multiple versions into one, something ED has no intention of doing. Hey! That's what I did!

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye91 said:

You don't want us to use it or see us using it. Which is something you should learn to get over and stop caring how people play with their airplanes and stop advocating for something that already has zero impact on your enjoyment of a module.

 

Again, I couldn't care less, please read the things you're responding to instead of making up what you think the thoughts I have in my head are and arguing against that.

 

I couldn't care less how you play with your aircraft, I don't fly them realistically either.

 

I don't care what missions you fly, or how you fly them, or what difficulty settings you use, blah blah blah, I've said this twice already only to be ignored, I'm guessing because it doesn't fit your narrative about me.

 

As for the LAU-88, what this thread is about, it seems the aircraft as is, is compatible with it, and I can't find information about whether or not it's still a valid option for the imeframe and operator, and in light of that, I'll take ED's word for it, and so the LAU-88 can stay. Though it would be preferable to model the issues with using it.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98