Giving a B-1B air to air weapons

[TempestII]

Hello all,
I'm trying to add AMRAAMs to the B-1B bomber (usually the external pylon version) to turn it into a substitute B-1R or EB-1C Vampire.
Using the Editor, it's easy enough to add a mount and add missiles to it. It's also easy to add an APG-77 radar. However, I'm unsure of how to add the mandatory data link. Even AIM-9Xs apparently need this to be launched.
Is there any way to add such a data link using the Editor? I haven't tried changing any LUA details but I'm open to that if it's the only way.


Thanks in advance.

[BDukes]

There used to be string that had datalink numbers so you can add. Can't find. Maybe somebody else see and I miss? Anyway if not ask dev and ask to anchor post so can find.

If you have SQL lite viewer you can looks at the Datacomm table and pull the id ou will need for lua or delta file. So look at DB viewer look at aircraft comms/datalink field and then weapon. You can then add in lua or with delta file. You probably want #317 AIM-120 Command Datalink [Two-Way].

I'm going to add a add comms/link field request as its used as much as add weapon and sensor.

Hope this help!

Bill

[Gunner98]

Another option is to ask those platforms be added to the DB as Hypothetical with a bit of backup data. I think the B-1R could very well be a real thing while the EB-1C is certainly a fictional platform.

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Another option is to ask those platforms be added to the DB as Hypothetical with a bit of backup data. I think the B-1R could very well be a real thing while the EB-1C is certainly a fictional platform.

It is not a good option at this point Gunner. I contribute much to db list and things are really behind. I don't mean this in awful way but it is reality. There are guys on their that are recopying and pasting things that they asked for years ago. If you'd like me to map out an example request from start of request to status now please let me know.

I think they need more hours into this or start thinking about entertainment DB edit. We are not in same Harpoon world so I think the Herman concern is ancient history. Looking at other game it is almost standard mod.

Again not being mean but the wait would not be short if go by timeline of what most requests start and end at.

Thank

Bill

[Gunner98]

No issues, just a thought

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

No issues, just a thought

If you could weigh in on this to the devs it would be helpful. Your advocacy on this issue would help the common user a lot.

Thanks!

Bill

[TempestII]

Thanks for the suggestions.
I've done some digging and tried to add what I think is the AIM-120 Datalink to my Bone (the myriad of other sensors I added with the non-LUA Editor). The datalink is at the bottom, in bold.

However, whenever I try to run the Lua Console, I get the following error:

ERROR: [string "Console"]:1: unexpected symbol near '<'

This is my first foray into the world of LUA and therefore I'm sure there's something obvious that I'm missing or doing wrong. If anyone can help I'd be very grateful.

<ScenarioUnits>
<Unit_ZZBKHD-0HM5FV44GN98N>
<!--B-1R Excalibur (B-1B Lancer [4909])-->
<SensorRemove_2_5555 />
<!--AN/APG-83 SABR-GS AESA-->
<SensorAdd_5839>
<!--AN/APG-77v1 AESA [NATF]-->
<Cov>
<Seg>PB1,PB2,PMF2,SB1,SB2,SMF1,</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>PB1,PB2,PMF2,SB1,SB2,SMF1,</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_5839>
<SensorAdd_2509>
<!--AN/AAQ-37 EO-DAS-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_2509>
<SensorAdd_5344>
<!--AN/AAQ-37 EO-DAS MAWS-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_5344>
<SensorAdd_2426>
<!--AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_2426>
<SensorAdd_2510>
<!--EOTS [IRST]-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_2510>
<SensorAdd_3466>
<!--EOTS [Laser Designator]-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_3466>
<SensorAdd_5973>
<!--AN/ALQ-249 NGJ High Band-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_5973>
<SensorAdd_5972>
<!--AN/ALQ-249 NGJ Lo Band-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_5972>
<SensorAdd_5971>
<!--AN/ALQ-249 NGJ Mid Band-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_5971>
<SensorAdd_2312>
<!--AN/AAQ-24(V) DIRCM/LAIRCM-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<Cov_Ill>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov_Ill>
</SensorAdd_2312>
<CommAdd_43 />
<!--AIM-120 Command Datalink AIM-120 Weapon Link-->
<Cov>
<Seg>360</Seg>
</Cov>
<CommAdd_43 />
</Unit_ZZBKHD-0HM5FV44GN98N>
</ScenarioUnits>

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: TempestII
Using the Editor, it's easy enough to add a mount and add missiles to it. It's also easy to add an APG-77 radar. However, I'm unsure of how to add the mandatory data link.

As cool as this idea is, I'm not sure it's really possible to do without violating your user agreement. The best thing to do is put in a DB request for a hypothetical platform. B-1s with forward firing ordnance is awesome though. I strongly encourage this addition.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
As cool as this idea is, I'm not sure it's really possible to do without violating your user agreement. The best thing to do is put in a DB request for a hypothetical platform. B-1s with forward firing ordnance is awesome though. I strongly encourage this addition.

Huh? How is it against said agreement?
Also the newer b-1b in the db have air-air fcr already apg-83 sabr-gs aesa

local u = SE_GetUnit({guid='UNITGUIDHERE'})
local arcT={'PB1','PB2','SB1','SB2','SMF1','SMF2','SMA1','SMA2',
'SS1','SS2','PS1','PS2','PMA1','PMA2','PMF1','PMF2'};
local arcD={'PB1','PB2','SB1','SB2','SMF1','SMF2','SMA1','SMA2',
'SS1','SS2','PS1','PS2','PMA1','PMA2','PMF1','PMF2'};
--remove the arcs you don't actually want applied above does full 360degree arcs.
-- ADD APG-77 AESA LPI
ScenEdit_UpdateUnit({guid=u.guid,mode='add_sensor',dbid=4477,arc_detect=arcD,arc_track=ArcT})

--## Tomahawk Command Datalink 1600 160ch needed for re-attack\post launch control of lrsm etc
ScenEdit_UpdateUnit({guid=u.guid,mode='add_comms',dbid='134'});
--## AIM 120 Command Datalink [two-way offboard] 8 ch? [act like e2-d remote control if unit also cec comms]
ScenEdit_UpdateUnit({guid=u.guid,mode='add_comms',dbid='317'});
--## Standard version of AIM 120 Command Datalink [two-way]
--ScenEdit_UpdateUnit({guid=tostring(myunit.guid),mode='add_comms',dbid='294'});


Also attached a script to do it all (create the unit, add a clean vls mounts,sensor,comms,weapons)
result is mythical b-1b with aim-260's aim-120d's some aim-9x in addition to it's monster loadout (which should probably be a ferry loadout when doing this but whatever..)
b1-custombomber.txt attached.

[KnightHawk75]

ORIGINAL: BDukes
...
I'm going to add a add comms/link field request as its used as much as add weapon and sensor.
Hope this help!

Bill

Go for it, but that supposedly was already on the to-do list months ago if not already implemented in unreleased builds, or so I recall someone mentioning in late summer or early fall.

BTW here is something to aware of when adding the tomahawk comms to b-1, or other flying units now in 1147.14 I've noticed. There is a new side-effect, as part of them fixing the early break-off bug with air-air munitions and datalinks in 1147.13/14.

When the AI is in control of b-1b with said comm links to say a bunch of fired lrasm's it now behaves in a weird way sometimes when automated, such it will not break an engagement till the missiles hit because it still has link to them (or till another unit passes link), it treats those munitions like it would aim-120d's that required some guiding, which is wrong imho.

[TempestII]

Thanks for the help Knighthawk! That's exactly what I was after.

I used to Search function and it looks the B-1R was requested several months ago in the Unit Requests thread so I don't want to duplicate that. I really hope that we do get it in the game but I understand real aircraft take priority.

[thewood1]

The main issue with the db request continues to be people throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. The majority of people posting requests continue to be people who will never build a scenario. Its driven by some anal-retentiveness or nationalistic fervor.

The rule for posting a db request used to be that you had to describe the scenario you were going to use it in. Now, everyone and his brother spends their time scouring the web for every possible platform they can think of. The devs have tp spend the majority of their time sorting and prioritizing. I suspect that anything that can be done through lua or an ini gets a lower priority.

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The main issue with the db request continues to be people throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. The majority of people posting requests continue to be people who will never build a scenario. Its driven by some anal-retentiveness or nationalistic fervor.

True. The vast majority of people who clutter up the DB threads with demands for increasingly obscure and futuristic entries have never produced a scenario for the community and probably never will. I wish I had one dollar for every "I know that the Grand Fenwick Alphajet is identical to the Freedonia Alphajet but Grand Fenwick NEEDS its own unique version for the scenario that I am building but will never share" posting, I would have a lot more dollars than I have now.

-C

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The main issue with the db request continues to be people throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. The majority of people posting requests continue to be people who will never build a scenario. Its driven by some anal-retentiveness or nationalistic fervor.

True. The vast majority of people who clutter up the DB threads with demands for increasingly obscure and futuristic entries have never produced a scenario for the community and probably never will. I wish I had one dollar for every "I know that the Grand Fenwick Alphajet is identical to the Freedonia Alphajet but Grand Fenwick NEEDS its own unique version for the scenario that I am building but will never share" posting, I would have a lot more dollars than I have now.

-C

That's pretty mean-spirited. Some of you guys need to remembers where we came from and what the original objective of this project was....

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

ORIGINAL: BDukes
...
I'm going to add a add comms/link field request as its used as much as add weapon and sensor.
Hope this help!

Bill

Go for it, but that supposedly was already on the to-do list months ago if not already implemented in unreleased builds, or so I recall someone mentioning in late summer or early fall.

BTW here is something to aware of when adding the tomahawk comms to b-1, or other flying units now in 1147.14 I've noticed. There is a new side-effect, as part of them fixing the early break-off bug with air-air munitions and datalinks in 1147.13/14.

When the AI is in control of b-1b with said comm links to say a bunch of fired lrasm's it now behaves in a weird way sometimes when automated, such it will not break an engagement till the missiles hit because it still has link to them (or till another unit passes link), it treats those munitions like it would aim-120d's that required some guiding, which is wrong imho.

Ok. Did you report the second part as bug or does this need to be done? Forum tone probably off but just ask if you already done or want me to do?

Thank!

[KnightHawk75]

Ok. Did you report the second part as bug or does this need to be done? Forum tone probably off but just ask if you already done or want me to do?

Thank!

Not yet, usually focused on other things when I come across stuff like that, also wanted to confirm in happening with other standard units, as well and too see if it was fixed in .15 directly or indirectly as well in clean repo scenes before reporting it.

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

Ok. Did you report the second part as bug or does this need to be done? Forum tone probably off but just ask if you already done or want me to do?

Thank!

Not yet, usually focused on other things when I come across stuff like that, also wanted to confirm in happening with other standard units, as well and too see if it was fixed in .15 directly or indirectly as well in clean repo scenes before reporting it.

No worry. I know you contribute much here.

Thank!