Jump to content

Dump the USAF and ANG designation


jonsky7
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/23/2021 at 2:40 PM, jonsky7 said:

It is my wish that ED dump the USAF and ANG designation and just make an F-16C that is "circa 2007" or whatever. 


I don't really understand the need to be THAT specific about the aircraft. Just give me an F-16C from around 2007, capable of carrying everything it could possibly carry in 2007, from every country. Then I can decide what country's F-16C I'm flying.

 

It would be up to the player and/or mission designer to then create missions that allow, or not, things like smart weapons to be loaded onto 4 and 6.

I'm all for more options, I'll fly it how I want to fly it, and you can fly it how you see fit too.

Cheers

Yeah no thanks! Glad it stays like a USAF/ANG one

 

 

On 7/26/2021 at 11:59 AM, jonsky7 said:

LOOK, all of you against my wish, that's fine. I get it, you want serial number xxx-xxxx-xxx-xx

I'd just prefer a little poetic licence with weapons, I'm not expecting ED to model
 

 

I'm not even wishing for weapons that aren't in game, just that if an F16C could carry 4 HARMS  and launch them, then go ahead, same with GBU31 etc.

 

 


It's not clear from product page that the DCS Viper is specifically a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007.

The first place one can come across that information is the "Subject to Change - Desired F-16C Systems and Payloads" thread.

 

 

I am, I was super happy with carrying an employing 4 Harms, it was already in and done, then the community made ED do MORE work to stop them firing.
 

 

 

I asked, they said no, end of. I'll be sure to do more research into the specific variant being modelled before any future purchases.

Thanks for participating...

 

What you are wishing for a Frankenviper, something ED explicitly said they were not going to make


Edited by FoxOne007
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

 

What you are wishing for a Frankenviper, something ED explicitly said they were not going to make

 

 Correct.

 

Quote

Yeah no thanks! Glad it stays like a USAF/ANG one

 Good for you, thanks for sharing.


Edited by jonsky7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigNewey already said it's not happening unfortunately. I don't see any more point keeping this thread going. 

However, a personal opinion of mine. I think it's poor taste to have "frankenplanes" in DCS. I like that ED is sticking to a specific variant. When it comes to what weapons it can equip. I'm of the opinion that if the wiring exists and software is available to support said weapon (regardless of availability of stock of a particular weapon). It makes it easier for ED to do research on developing the module rather than a mish mash of systems from different variants.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED f-16c's adherence to the USAF and ANG designation will make ED f-16c lack of weapon diversity ,Another secret that can’t be told is that ED’s "persistence to the USAF and ANG" can save a lot of work in developing new weapons and new features or new radar

 

For example, "sticking to" F-16C using AN/APG-68 radar V5 instead of AN/APG-68 V9 can help ED save a lot of work, because the V9 ground mode has an increased SAR mode The synthetic aperture mode enables the APG-68(V)9 radar to achieve a resolution of 1 meter for long-distance ground targets, which is much better than the current (DBS) mode ,V9's air search distance is about 33% longer than V5, and there are new features added, You can imagine how much work will increase in ED's development of V9 radar than V5, but In the real world, the AN/APG-68 V5 radar of the U.S. Air Force’s F-16C has almost been changed to V9.


Edited by huchanronaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally speaking, some indicator in the loadout screen that loading the HARMS on the wrong pylons are inoperable..  

I'm fine with the realism of only having 2 operational, but just think allowing 2 on the pylons not wired isn't very realistic as this isn't a common loadout at all (ie. I've been told it was really never done outside of some photo shoots)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, huchanronaa said:

ED f-16c's adherence to the USAF and ANG designation will make ED f-16c lack of weapon diversity ,Another secret that can’t be told is that ED’s "persistence to the USAF and ANG" can save a lot of work in developing new weapons and new features or new radar

 

For example, "sticking to" F-16C using AN/APG-68 radar V5 instead of AN/APG-68 V9 can help ED save a lot of work, because the V9 ground mode has an increased SAR mode The synthetic aperture mode enables the APG-68(V)9 radar to achieve a resolution of 1 meter for long-distance ground targets, which is much better than the current (DBS) mode ,V9's air search distance is about 33% longer than V5, and there are new features added, You can imagine how much work will increase in ED's development of V9 radar than V5, but In the real world, the AN/APG-68 V5 radar of the U.S. Air Force’s F-16C has almost been changed to V9.

 

 

NG:
"The AN/APG-68(V)9 is also available as an easily-installed upgrade kit for existing F-16 aircraft. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, huchanronaa said:

ED f-16c's adherence to the USAF and ANG designation will make ED f-16c lack of weapon diversity

If you wanted weapon diversity go to the F-18, when will people understand that these restrictions give a module character of sort. If all modules were as capable as the next then modules would lack individuality. I see nothing wrong with ED sticking the their chosen variant.

 

Edit: On a side note, I've mentioned this on other threads, but having many different systems from many different variants would add even more complexity and dev time for the module. It takes long enough as it is to develop 1 specific variant let along an amalgam of multiple variants.


Edited by KIllshot0597
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

Y’all should really stop crying about this stuff. They’re not gonna change it, period. No point in whining about it further

 

Is it okay for the person who pays to complain?
It's just a pity that after waiting for so many years after falcon 4.0, I finally waited until the ed company was willing to develop the f-16c module, but it was really disappointed with the roadmap they developed. The roadmap seems to be designed to save their research and development work time, because of the use "the USAF and ANG designation", the system specifications can be lower, and the weapons can be less. It is very obvious that the radar system does not use the v9 version but the v5 version. Another example is the agm-154a1{Export high-explosive warhead version}  which is very similar to the agm-154a ,ED can be used "the US Air Force did not use that year" reason for unwilling to provide use


Edited by huchanronaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, huchanronaa said:

Is it okay for the person who pays to complain?
It's just a pity that after waiting for so many years after falcon 4.0, ED  finally waited until ed was willing to develop the f-16c module, but was a bit disappointed with the roadmap they developed. The development of roadmap seems to be aimed at saving their research and development work time, because of the use "the USAF and ANG designation", the system specifications can be lower, and the weapons can be less. It is very obvious that the radar system does not use the v9 version but the v5 version. Another example is the agm-154a1 which is very similar to the agm-154a can be used "the US Air Force did not use that year" reason for unwilling to provide use

 

I think the point is:  ED has provided a target.  Once the target baseline version is fully developed in accordance with the roadmap, then ED can pulse us as to what else to add, as well as which market/product strategy to use.  I'm willing to pay for the some of it, but for now, what I want most of all is the Viper to be complete to the roadmap first.  Until then, we can't get sidetracked or we'll never get anything completed.

  • Like 4

The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
=============================
Intel Core i7 5930K 3.5GHz (Six-Core OC to 4.4Ghz), 32Gb RAM// Radeon RX Vega // SSD only // Saitek X65F Throttle / TM Warthog FCS / Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals / Physical Cockpit // TrackIR // Win10Pro 64bit //

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, huchanronaa said:

Is it okay for the person who pays to complain?
 

 

Yes, they have every right. But this isn’t complaining anymore, this is a constant nagging to ED (buns lot of people) about something they have stated very clearly for about a zillion times that they’re not gonna do. 

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every decision has a pro and a con. Concerning creation, if one does not set an end state or goal it becomes easy to induce feature creep. Provided you have the money and time, open ended development can create amazing things. On the opposite end having a set finish line allows creators to organize and focus their efforts more easily. ED is in the business of making the most detailed simulation of combat aircraft. Some would argue that certain development decisions are a waste of time or a hassle. However, if you view ED’s decisions through the lens of realistic simulation a lot of choices make sense. ED cannot develop a viper tailored for everyone’s need. So they have made the logical choice in line with their design vision. A very specific viper helps both the customer to understand what they are getting and allows the developer to have an easily realized end state.

  • Like 1

Aircraft:

A-10C|A-10C II|AH-64D|AV-8B N/A|AJS-37|F-14|F-16C|F/A-18C|FC3|P-51D

KA-50|Mi-24P|SA-342|UH-1H

Terrains:

Syria|Persian Gulf|Normandy|NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 12:04 AM, mvsgas said:

The problem with this is no matter what ED decides to do, will be a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't. If they add it, someone is bound to "disagree" with it being available. That persons will have people that share the same opinion and they will all do thread after thread on how it should be removed.

 

Sadly this will not end here. There is so much misinformation and confusion of what specifically an F-16 can do, there are going to be many thread like this for a while. Before and after it is release.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 10:54 PM, mvsgas said:

I have been here since 2005, even on the old website, I have seen it so many times. No matter what module they release, someone will want a different version with different capabilities. Go through the forums and see. From the P-51 to the Yak-52, from the Black Shark to the Gazelle, it has been repeated over and over.

They add the chute, some one else will want the PW-200 engine of a early A model. They add that and someone will want the radar/EO display. Another will want the WAR HUD, then someone will want the WAC HUD, one of the may different radars, on and on.

 

Aircraft like the F-16, Mig-21, F-4, etc. They have to stick to a specific version if not it will never end.

 

I am hopeful that they will stick to a specific version, a specific year, a specific country and a specific level of modeling. If not, we will have to many variable and no matter what people will still complain. If they modeled every version of the F-16, with every possible configuration, someone will make a thread of how confusing it is and how they wish it was a simplified version like a FC3 or MAC aircraft.

 

So whether they model a 1995 USAF block 50 with 30% accuracy or a 2010 USAF block 50 with 96% accuracy, I will be happy as long as they stick to it and don't start changing it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, huchanronaa said:

For example, "sticking to" F-16C using AN/APG-68 radar V5 instead of AN/APG-68 V9 can help ED save a lot of work, because the V9 ground mode has an increased SAR mode

That doesn't make sense, as ED has already developed SAR ground mapping radar simulation for the F/A-18C, which does have it. 

 

The reason they're modeling the v5 version of the radar is because that's the one that was in use in the time frame they're modeling the Viper. Moving to the v9 would push the date of the aircraft back and necessitate modeling additional weapons and systems which they may not have complete or reliable information and documentation on. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wags locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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