Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About DarkFire

  • Birthday 05/10/1978

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World & MS Flight Sim 2020.
  • Location
    London, England
  • Interests
    Flight sims & FPS games.
  • Occupation
    Financial auditor.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This. If you can get inside the OODA loop of your opponent and force them to react instead of act, you're probably going to win. At the very least the odds are stacked heavily in your favour at that point.
  2. Also worth noting that the R-27ET is probably the ultimate tail-chase missile since its engine has such good specific impulse. You essentially get a less maneuverable R-73 with the same seeker head but much longer range and higher speed.
  3. I think the issue here is that the game simulates blast (reduces with distance as 1/r^3) but not fragmentation. Not sure how frag could be simulated in a performance-friendly manner though.
  4. Excellent point. The F-35 is a great replacement for the F-117: precision stealth strike capability that is also capable of self-defence. The "1st day of war" missions that the F-117 did will be a perfect match for the F-35.
  5. 32Gb is good for DCS but I certainly wouldn't go any lower. DCS can easily use ~20Gb of RAM on its own. 64Gb would be good for future-proofing but not necessary at the moment. I think a better choice right now would be to go for 32Gb and put the remaining budget in to the CPU and GPU. Another essential for DCS is to run the game from an SSD or NVME drive - running from a traditional disk is a painful experience, espeically if you want a wider pre-loaded graphics radius.
  6. I agree entirely. I'm sure the F-35 would be very capable in contested airspace but if it's intended to replace the A-10C then it would be a very bad fit for that mission: an A-10C replacement probably doesn't need to be all that stealthy but what it does need is loiter time and air-to-mud carriage capacity, ease of maintenance and high physical robustness, most of which is sacrificed in the F-35 in favour of excellent stealth characteristics. The F-35 and A-10 are meant for entirely different missions, and the former is consequently a poor replacement for the latter.
  7. As far as I'm aware this is correct. What you see is a combiner lens which records footage through the HUD. One lens faces forwards and the other faces down to record what the HUD is showing. When the camera operates, e.g. when the gun is fired, the combiner lens combines the HUD and forward images.
  8. I'm fairly confident that the F-35 will be a useful replacement for the F-16, especially in highly contested airspace, for anti-air, SEAD & light strike missions. What I don't foresee it doing well at all is replacing the A-10. The USAF and probably other NATO air forces need a dedicated CAS & interdiction platform for low intensity / COIN ops. That's a role that the A-10C fulfils very well indeed. If the USAF is serious about replacing it what they need is some sort of modernised A-1 Skyraider rather than a 5th gen stealth platform that has comparatively limited loiter time and, if it wishes to remain stealthy, VERY limited air to mud carriage capacity.
  9. Combat Approved in Syria, episodes 1 & 2. The episodes feature a tour of the Khmeimim base & several sections of footage featuring the VKS aircraft stationed there. In particular the footage shows the Su-34 and what appears to be an Su-35 with R-27ER's, R-77's and what may be K-74M's mounted. Also shows the S-400 and Pantsir S-1 systems.
  10. Agree 100%. Something relevant that I'd like to see would be the ability to change coalitions in-mission. For example, a given country could be neutral but on violating the border they could turn hostile.
  11. Some modules that I'd love to see and that I think would be achievable in terms of available experts / documentation: 1. Su-27SM (my personal dream module). 2. Blackburn Buckaneer. 3. Tornado GR1 / F3. 4. MiG-25 5. SR-71. Modules I'd like to see that may not be achievable: 1. Su-24M2. 2. Tornado GR4. 3. MiG-31.
  12. With respect that's a horrible idea. Pay once and a module is essentially free to use forever. Games-as-a-service is a terrible idea that needs to die. Yes, subscriptions would provide a steady source of income for a dev team but if anything happened to that dev team then every player would potentially instantly lose access to everything they "own" which I think is unacceptable for a game than can 100% be played in single player. The subscription model can work for 100% on-line only games such as iRacing but for anything that has an SP component, no.
  13. I agree, coalitions for the Syria map can be problematic. Something I'd like to see would be an expansion of the "Insurgent" faction, or maybe a dedicated faction called "terrorist forces" or similar.
  • Create New...