SFJackBauer

On my PC, right shift works as the accelerator key.

Variants of S-300 can destroy ballistic missiles, so I dont think a SR-71 could dodge / avoid them once entering its killzone. Thats why we have satellites. More info - http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

Santos Dumont?

1) I like your nick. :) 2) I take you are flying a F-4 with F-15C cockpit, right? The F-15C cockpit does not support the employment of A2G weapons, you have to use the A-10 pit or a russian cockpit to do it.

Pics or didn't happened. :music_whistling:

I have attached a track from a test mission I made. Battery of four launchers, one search radar, skill excellent. I wait until they start launching into me. Then I fire a 58 in the radar, and 2 25 in the launchers. First wave they get one missile, but lose the radar and one launcher. Notice that, since in the first wave I take out the search radar, how they become more sneaky since then they engage you without warning. And how is important to use terrain to mask your egress. As a bonus, see my wing being ripped off in the end due to a reckless pilot :) SA11.trk

I can live with being able to cycle WPs only forward. But the HSI freeze should have been fixed.

Leaving tactical nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles aside, the best weapon would be anti-radiation missiles. In-game the only flyable aircraft that is capable of carrying them is the Su-25T, with the Kh-25MPU and Kh-58U missiles. The latter is more powerful and faster, and has longer range, more appropriate for harder-to-kill SAMs like SA-15 (Tor), SA-10/20 (S-300), Patriot. For SA-11s the lighter, yet capable Kh-25MPU can do its job. Also in a SA-11 battery every launcher vehicle has its own tracking radar, different from older SAMs systems like the SA-2 which had only one tracking radar for the entire battery. So you will find you need either to dodge all their missiles until they run out of ammo, or fire several anti-radiation missiles at them, one for every launcher. If you do not have anti-radiation missiles at your disposal, then my advice is... do not mess with them :) More information: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html

By testing inside the simulator I find you can get reasonably accurate tracks in ABRIS without using the laser. My guess would be the INU provides the calculation for it. However no number on Shkval, you need to guess the range using the map.

Even if you brought all the power of Microsoft, with its entire budget and development teams, even then I think it would be impossible to make all you described in the near future. Just thinking about the server and bandwidth requirements makes me giggle. And the balance issues? A modern attack helicopter squadron can decimate an unprotected armored company. Not fun for those playing tanks. Then you add air defense systems... Not fun for those playing choppers... Add SEAD aircraft, but then you'll need escorts, higher ranking SAMs systems, AWACS... Please understand my point. I'm not the pessimist type, and I think every idea is worth consideration, otherwise we would be stuck with PCs with 640k memory (thanks Bill :D). However, there are viable ideas, and there are not viable ones. I'd rather see that development time and effort spent on better modelling of more aircraft types, larger and more varied maps and... surprise... a dynamic campaign! :)

To balance things however, Mi-24 Hinds and its 12.7mm YakB machine gun are equally deadly. As you can check out on the quick start mission for the A-10.

Can only tell you my experience. Almost 2 years in ownership of a X-52 and the only thing I could complain about it is the centering spring becoming noisy and grippy.

There are several points where Falcon still outshines other combat sims... starting by the F-16 :) - In Falcon you can use guided A2G munitions in a fast multirole jet, which can also defend itself decently. - Falcon has the complete implementation of F-16 HOTAS and avionics system. - Falcon has varied, large scale theaters available (Korea, Balkans, Middle East, Israel etc) - Falcon has a working IADS (integrated air defense system), where enemy aircraft, awacs, ground observers and SAMs all cooperate to kill you (talking here in campaign mode obviously). - Falcon has a campaign system that, although unrealistic in some aspects, still offers huge replayability and variety. For example, you target not only ground and air targets, but also logistical, infrastructure and C3I military targets which affect the campaing direction. - Falcon has (also in campaign mode) workable OCA (offensive counter air) strikes, where you can bomb an enemy airfield runways, tower and supply depots to reduce its effectiveness. - Falcon fully supports cockpit builders. - Falcon has A2G radar. - Falcon has the Sniper pod. - Falcon has NVGs. BUT playing Falcon vanilla without any public mod (OF / FF) is a waste of time IMHO.

I tend to disagree. Every fighter, attack aircraft or helo is made to be flown in pairs at least. I've flown my fair share of flights (in FC2 and other sims...) as a wingman or lead of somebody, and I get much more satisfaction flying as a pair than alone. Even when I get zero kills and my partner gets all :D

NCTR

Diametrically opposed to my ARMA2 experience. I'm also a long-time fan of Tom Clancy games, however the last ones were bad. I played MW a lot for the fun and fast action. But actually the best tactical shooter it is ARMA2 hands down. I'm not much of a clan guy, so I stick to pub servers. Even then, with teamspeak, track-ir and good missions, it is a blast.

The diamond square is not a target cue, is just a reference point created by the mission designer to steer you towards the targets general area. Maybe the diamond can point directly over a target, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of existence of additional targets in the area.

Because turning on and off lights EVERY time you need to switch between outside and inside is a little impractical. Also the NVG system will suffer auto-compensation when you turn on the lights, and then when you turn them off it will have to auto-compensate again to the outside, meaning in a few seconds you will be completely blind. NVG compatible cockpits use only one color for all the instruments (of a specific wavelength) which the NVGs are adjusted to reject, thus you don't have to switch the lights on/off all the time.

Strange, I could swear I did a mission where friendlies appeared on my radar scope without me using the radar. Now that I tried again, it seems good. Nevermind then.

How do I do that? I want to make some training missions for russian aircrafts without the all-seeing-eye.

The aircraft Fire Control Computer should give the right cues to the pilot. If you are like Mach 2 and your target is head on Mach 2, then of course you will be able to fire at them a lot earlier than if the target were accelerating away from you. Now, the manufacturers say the max range of the missile is 130km... right. Under what conditions? What is the speed of the launching and of the target, and the aspect between them? Altitude? Without these other variables, it is impossible to compare two missile performances. Remember that the military details are classified, no manufacturer ever is going to disclose it to everybody. They give a "ballpark" number only. Missile envelopes are as dynamic as aircraft ones. Actually, knowing the missile propelant quantity, specific impulse, missile weight and drag coefficients is a better (perhaps the only?) way to construct a working simulation than picking up the range on manufacturers website. Remember the range is a result of an equation, not an input.

First Person Shooters does not simulate the mechanics of using a firearm - bead alignment, weight transfer, posture, etc. Thus when using a simulator we are limited to the mechanics and variables that the sim exposes us to. However in "games" like ARMA 2, which have much better ballistics and recoil simulation than Counterstrike, you can get closer to the mechanics of using a firearm than someone who never touched a gun before. Still then, you will need training to deal with wrong habits, procedures and with situations you never encountered while playing the game. Example, have you seen any PC sim where you could, while landing, by applying too much pressure too long, overheat the brakes and perhaps blow up the tires? It is perfectly possible to simulate this, but it could not be feasible for a number of reasons: complexity, irrelevancy to the sim in question, lack of real-life cues and so on. Then for the original question: "If I can fly the chopper in this game, does it mean I can do it in real life too?" Only someone who flew both can assert accurately how close to real life this sim is. But given that all computerized simulations are approximations of reality, and limited in several ways, you never could jump directly into the real cockpit without first getting true flight training time, to learn all those little (but sometimes hugely important) things you never learn in a simulator.

Just to be sure: Source

Very nice tips Royalman. Thanks for sharing. :thumbup:

Actually the question must be: Why allow loading 3 K on stations 3 and 9 if only one is allowed in real loadouts? Digging through forum archives: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=97461&postcount=26 From what I know its a mix of weight, drag, and safety risks related to the landing gear, to limit Mavs to two per pylon in case of 65Ds, or one in case of 65Ks.