Jump to content

Avimimus

Members
  • Posts

    1168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do hope that the basic flight model, weapons model etc. will be to FC3 standards. I remember the 'arcade mode' for the original Blackshark... and it just wasn't that much fun as targets could be instantaneously detected, selected, and engaged. It didn't work. I think FC3 level of systems modelling is a must. That said, I do think there is room for removing the 'switchology' without removing all systems modelling or the quality of flight models. I could also see a product like MAC having additional and newer aircraft (thanks to the shallower systems modelling requiring less reference materials and fear of accidentally releasing secrets). I hope to continue using FC3 and the Su-25/Su-25T in DCS indefinitely (which seems to be the case so long as it remains the free aircraft).
  2. Interesting! Did they still use the hybrid rocket-launcher/drop-tanks (JL-100). If it can I'd probably order the module for that alone... there is something about the idea of putting a rocket pod in front of a bunch of fuel (and venting the exhaust over it) that always results in a bit of nervous laughter (or maniacal laughter) from me.
  3. Ah, that is sorry to hear. It is so central to it. Any word on if they'll go for a Gr.Mk.III/A instead? The map should have at least one 1980s Harrier variant that was deployed to it in that period!! It'd be a shame if the only Falkland war flyable aircraft were the Mirage III and the Pucara (although I'm honestly most excited for the Pucara).
  4. Eagle Dynamics: Digital Combat Simulator (YouTube comment reply - 31 minutes ago): "It would be nice, but sadly AI only. Thanks - Scott / bignewy"
  5. Ka-29 would be fun. Probably too little information and too much classified though!
  6. That (now removed) instagram video is clearly from a Glowing Amraam video that hasn't been released yet - likely the launch trailer.
  7. Interesting! I wonder if this could open the way to integrate unguided weapons? As planned for initial service versions? Unguided rockets and bombs are fun. Realistic too, if the Cold War had continued.
  8. I'm all for any new rocket option - especially for older platforms that rely on them as a major weapon (the Mi-24/Mi-8/Su-25). So I won't argue too strongly. I do think that adding a greater variety of S-5 warheads (and even S-5 engines/bodies) would actually add the most - since we only have one option for the S-5 rocket. Of course, the S-8 entered production in 1984 and the Mi-24P in 1981... so the time when it was reliant on the S-5 was relatively short (assuming Mi-24P were prioritised for access to S-8 production). Honestly, they should do both. It is a relatively easy feature to add... low cost to develop - and it does add something to the sim.
  9. To be fair... several airforces are operating real jets that are older than 5 years and still have bugs that haven't been worked out.
  10. From the one report I've read... the crews in Afghanistan learned to do it intuitively... like a WW2 fighter-bomber pilot. Some reportedly became quite accurate after they got enough experience. Part of me still wants the MBD racks so we can carry the 10xFAB-100 bomb load that was used occasionally in Afghanistan. I find it particularly amusing as this was the exact bomb load of some bombers which carried earlier versions of the FAB-100 during the Great Patriotic War / WWII...!
  11. Hi, I believe the graphics api is 'Vulkan'. It might be good to use that discussion to avoid people getting excited about the 'vulcan' bomber used in the Falklands etc. Some people might get excited about the wrong thing!
  12. If crew IRL are able to rotate them out of the way - then it'd seem to make sense as an option. Probably more useful than having to set the magnetic compass
  13. Having the option of an elevated attack profile (like exists as an automatic setting on later ATAKA) would be useful for getting over vegetation and berms though - so I think that is a reasonable idea.
  14. Glad you are feeling better (and not just because you are making a Su-17 )
  15. Is this planned anytime soon? I'm surprised more people aren't babbling excitedly about it given the progress on the evident 3d model and research into the systems.
×
×
  • Create New...