EricJ

Well at least an SDK for the wish list?

:thumbup:

Yeah... but the one I sent him was like 150K polys.... and this one has been chopped down, but not as jacked up as a previous version, so if interested, I can send it over sometime.

I got a 27K version of the Super Hornet available, and let MadMaxter know anyways... least when the transition happens... but that looks great :thumbup:

Still after all these years still has the beauty :)

:thumbup: nice!

Good points but consider the fact that us and the beta testers know or have a real good idea on the direction of the simulation, you don't. Is there anything wrong with immersion and ground crew? No of course not, but you're all wishing for something that wasn't planned, or isn't being implemented, and basically and seriously, stop wasting your time on something that may never happen. Honestly it's kinda funny watching how topics get out of control with speculation and this and that. And it's the beta team and partners that try and correct you, but you all sometimes just don't listen and realize what we tell you is what's going on, and you all just speculate to no end about stuff that isn't currently going on, that's my point about all this.

Seriously guys, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of me, but here's somethings to remember: 1. Even if it's a "feature" BS is on a "feature freeze", so no FPS crap. 2. It's a flight sim, no more no less. The "walking around" feature is a by-product of using dismounted infantry, not in anyway a projected thing. The testing focus for the beta testers does not focus on the ability to walk around and possibly shoot stuff. The modelling focus is not on making buildings enterable, but making them better. And believe me they have made them better looking :thumbup: 3. Testing focus is using an attack helicopter, not making it a FPS and walking and killing infantryman with a pistol. You want that stuff, buy ArmA. Adding the FPS elements would just make it go on longer, as now you have more physics modelling going on. Oh by the way, did I mention other testing, such as physics modelling? Now don't get me wrong... it'd be cool given the DCS engine to do alot of stuff but seriously, the topic is getting pretty stale with arguments that bear no fruit because it's not going to happen, and it's not the focus of Eagle Dynamics to make an ArmA style game. I figured GG would have answered it, but apparently again... more speculation on something that really does not exist.

Yeah rog. I'm too tired to even bother anymore as it is, but we'll agree to disagree. I'm too much of a virtual strike pilot to know what I'm talking about, and you're too much of an F-15 pilot to realize what it may be able to do, so we'll just leave it at that :thumbup:

Yah let me be one of the "fans".... but seriously if LOMAC is anything close to the real thing, then it'd be a great platform, and was preferable to a slow, ungainly Su-25T. If things had gone further by giving it the capability that the Su-30/35s were given, it'd be able to step amongst the other strike aircraft. It's a matter of knowing the capabilities and using the weaknesses of it being a heavy weight (which mind you, didn't feel "heavy") aircraft that could handle even light fighters. I've bounced enough aircraft in Flanker 2.51 so I really highly doubt it'd suffer poorly against equivalent aircraft, which it couldn't outrange the F-14s Pheonix (which really, nothing could, except the MIG-31), so it's a matter of conjecture and "what if". Mind you Flanker 2.51 modelled the cancelled "Su-33M", which was designed to give the Kuznetsov's Su-33s a multirole capability, which of course was not produced due to lack of funds, and in LOMAC was modelled as it should be, a carrier capable interceptor for fleet defense. Sure technology-wise it couldn't hold a candle to a Strike Eagle or a Tornado, but again, it can carry alot, and still get bombs on target, and the range capability to get the bombs there too. But we're getting slightly OT with the Su-33 stuff, and yeah yeah yeah

Well the sim only focuses on the Ka-50 that's the point I'm making. No offense man, but just because my tag says "ED Partners" doesn't mean I don't get to play with the sim a bit. Sure I did mainly texture work, but I do need the sim to see if my work is right. And sometimes if my stick wants to work correctly, then I'll fly around too. Sure I don't have as much flight time as the dedicated testers, I do have the same betas they do.

Well yeah, but I meant more of complexity though, but agreed. And as far as capability... yeah it's not the greatest, but as a strike aircraft it'd be great, least IMHO. Er.. I think I'm just not being clear enough maybe. If Kamov gave unprecedented access then that's Kamov. But saying like (for example!) the legacy Hornet. Sure it's been around for quite awhile, but there's still classified information on it, so while the Ka-50 is a high fedility aircraft and being simmed particularly, some of the manuals I got for the Super Hornet are unclassified, and on the web, but some things, like how the radar operates, capabilities, are not, and naturally the USN is still keeping that under wraps as far as true capabilities, such as AMRAAM/MICA performance. Alot of actual performance data is still classified, and one USAF/French exercise the results were kept secret, so it's based more on the particular aircraft, and if ED themselves want to go through the trouble of simming it.

I may have to reinstall lock on just for this beauty... it's so nice..

Yep, that's definitely a pic to start the day off right :D :thumbsup:

No, they just don't have all the manuals to do it. Alot of that stuff is classified, and nobody's going to jail over a simulation. @leafer: I'm not sure what an AFM is for a high speed jet. Flanker 1 had Anatoly Kvotchur as a SME for the flight modelling, so I highly doubt that the FM for the Su-27/33 is too far off. It's smooth and really should be, and it's understandable a subsonic boat that the Su-25 is should be a pain, but really don't see why the Su-33 needs to be any more tweaked IMHO.

Okay it's not because it was "put there" it's due to a engine related issue. Besides the focus is Ka-50, not CSAR, or any activities related to it (how you knew about it SuperKungFu is a matter of conjecture in itself). ED is not your average company, so using US analogies and practices is just not a good idea. Everybody seriously seems to be losing focus on what the product is about, not what or how it can be exploited. If they get the wild hair up the butt then fine, but I highly doubt that it's a feature to be "implemented"

I don't think so, but in a way yeah.. I guess. Lock On held on to late last year, when I finally removed it from the hard drive. I've flown the various aircraft for quite a bit, and got finally bored with the Su-33, as I think I've done everything with it, so I had to move on.

Ubisoft messed the NDA issue up with not actually making the testers sign an NDA for the GRAW2 beta test (or one of them anyways). They expected it to be a "gentleman's agreement", not a legal binding document that can be used to boot you off. Having a legally binding contract really puts the restraint on you, since you can be actually held liable for your misdeeds, i.e. spilling all the beans. Sure you're expected to delete or not distribute... but realistically it's up to common sense and maturity to expect them not to. Of course that just means you may be persona non grata for further tests. Gaming communities as a whole (depending on the game of course) are pretty small, so if you get canned for doing something you shouldn't have, then well.... you're just marked in a sense. Sure you can change usernames, but overall.. you're going to get noticed somehow and get canned.

Okay, there is no capability for walking around and playing BS like Operation Flashpoint, or Armed Assault. The game engine is not setup for it, nor is it planned, or even talked about. Just to end some wild speculation about a feature that doesn't exist.

You can modify it as per the picture below, kinda like the regular Su-27 pylons, but yeah... AA-10s are huge....But then again pylon placement of course is overall depending on the gear doors, it's so smooth you can't even tell in the render inside the hangar. thanks brah, but the modelling skills that you got far surpass my texturing ability :thumbup: Like I said man, that's just smooth

Oh yeah love the skin job man, pretty well weathered....

I dunno man, the bottom pylons just don't jive with the model, least to me.. but it's like a sportscar brah, very fine lines....

Nice stuff man, I like it.... :thumbup:

That's been an issue with the Su-27/33 for ages though, far enough away and cyan blue for you.....

I doubt it, least not yet anyways. Like the Russians, the US will send out a degraded version (or in this case the older Block I radar)... unless of course the Indians specifically ask for it. I mean it's not fully fielded so I would doubt Boeing would ship the Indians a better version of it's own fighter that could outshoot the US Navy birds... be kinda embarrassing :) Then again, if the Indians do get the radars, then it'd be after the USN gets them, or when the USN gets enough to feel "safe" in it's own skies. That's well... up to speculation, but possible, I guess, not sure on the true capabilties meself. Then again it's not like JDAMs need constant correction, feed them the coordinates, and drop them and then move on to the A2A portion.