Weta43

You think he’s hating on the USA from inside the USA ? (Surely the US ? ‘America’ is too big a region for someone to hate all of it) Maybe he just thinks there is this one aspect of the culture of the USA that could do with some improvement, but likes the people just fine ? I’m not saying I don’t love my partner when I say I don’t agree with her about her attitude to instruction manuals...

the current pilot physics are pretty clunky though - a new skeletal animation body with an actual run and crouch behind designator (into ‘cockpit’ mode) would be pretty much the job done...

Arma would be a big leap, allowing a player to occupy a ground unit would be only the first step towards that, but most of what was needed for the JTAC idea. They already have a new skeletal animation that could allow running not sea sick inducing fast walking - and either the mission designer can put a JTAC somewhere handy, or let CA users move between vehicles, choppers and foot soldiers... If some people will play ATC, someone would volunteer for JTAC

Completely agree

As I said in another thread a moment ago, when my boy was 8 he used to play age of empires & his favourite thing to do was start up the Camaro with a bazooka cheat, then drive around blowing up Romans with impunity. Some people think that's fun - never quite saw the appeal myself. As someone else said above Seems more interesting to me.

This is a broad generalisation that I recognise isn't true in all cases, but it seems from many posts on the forum that E.D. think American's have the money, and are patriotic, and they want to buy the most recent US aircraft available and reinforce its superiority - preferably by shooting fish in a barrel. Forget serving up a balanced fight, just provide a mechanism for domination. (Like my boy when he was 8 wanted the Transam with the bazooka cheat to blow up the Romans in Age of Empires) I've read posts by Chizh that make me think he thinks Western (US) audiences are 1/ not particularly interested in Russian aircraft, and that 2/ Russian aircraft aren't up to scratch anyway - so wouldn't provide the kind of experience the audience are after. If E.D. don't think they have an audience, and think that if they modelled them correctly they'd be a bit sh*t compared to Western aircraft, why would they work hard to get access to the docs & the OK to model them ? If that's the case then it's a self fulfilling prophesy - only make modern Western aircraft, then point at how much they out sell the Russian FC3 aircraft...

Having a combined arms Human FAC/JTAC (on foot, not in a Humvee or APC) with only a radio and a designator would be cool - if they could be dropped by a chopper somewhere close and make their way to a concealed position with a view... Then the folk manning the tanks, APCs and SHORAD would have to keep their eyes (scopes) open for single soldiers making their way across the countryside... This guy, plus a pair of binoculars

Pretty sure that even before the F-18 was released, that wasn't the case.

I've always found it a weird decision on E.D.'s part. - if RedFor country has sufficient home grown technology to maintain, arm and keep in the air an F/A-18, they're going to be able to make use of a GPS system. If it's flying for Russia - presumably one of the FIRST changes they would make is to move it off relying on western GPS and onto their own GLASNOSS system - precisely to avoid what E.D. are modelling happening... It might be that they end up with some differnet pages, or another screen on the dash, but in the interests of simplicity and removing the guesswork from what would be an obvious conversion - just leave the GPS system working for Red and Blue...

Yes, only if they were outside Russia

and so this: doesn't make sense. Yes, as I said, even an F-15A has a vastly superior radar to the Su-27S, & the absence of a working GCI/Data Link for the Su-27 in MP means that even the "A" will have a major advantage in BVR (especially if a more accurate ASM version of the N001 more accurately displaying some of its shortcomings were modelled). The R-73 & HMCD do mean that the Su-27 has some advantage if the fight gets to the merge, but because an F-15A's AGP63 is already so superior to the N001, the only real advantage of the "C" is that it gets to carry the AIM-120 (& the improvements in data display / MFD / cockpit functionality). When it comes to BVR against an Su-27 an "A", is much like a Fox 1 limited "C" & as you said, when considering both BVR and WVR: So an "A" would allow modelling the full capabilities of a period appropriate aircraft, & result in a "a very close matchup and a balanced one"

Even before the 63 got PSP, it was still a superior radar to the N-001:

or not. The Soviet Air Force began receiving Su-27s in June 1985 That aircraft would have been of the same version as the aircraft modelled in FC3. Yes, the last "A" was built in '79, but those aircraft were only 6 years old when the first Su-27s were delivered. Given that the last "C" was built in '85 ( & so the "C"s are all > 30 years old, ) that makes the "A" & the Su-27 very much contemporaries.

I guess some people are "glass half full" kind of folk, and some are "glass half empty" ... and apparently a small minority are "WHY IS MY GLASS NOT FULL ??? I WANT MY GLASS FULL NOW !!!, ...AND I WHY DIDN'T I GET A FREE COOKIE ????" kind of folk...

Along with many, many other things, the wires are modelled and the hook is modelled. If you catch any wire - not just the third - you'll land, if you don't you'll do a bolter.

+1 for F-15A Nearly as many "A"s were made as "C"s A full fidelity "A" module with an early AGP-63 would bring an iconic teen fighter that's real life capabilities make an entertaining and contemporary cold war adversary to the Su-27. I guess if what you enjoy is fighting opponents that can't fight back, an "E" would be fun...

Maybe they were showing off for the press or Brass... S.E.Bulba posted a rocket launch parameter table which showed the minimum allowable speed for launching the S-8 is something like 100 km/h, and a minimum altitude was included too. I had also thought the problem would be the smoke being ingested (as it was for the Su-25), but Chizh posted (& maybe S.E.Bulba confirmed ?) that the issue was the high speed gasses causing turbulence, and the turbulence causing pressure changes across the intakes that caused flameouts.

:) Welcome back !

Firing individual little 4kg Hydra rockets with the SAS turned on - would you expect to see anything ? All it proves is the AH-64 SAS can compensate. (We think the Ka-50 SAS should do the same - it just isn't.) Sure looks like a lot here Firing a salvo of 11.5 kg S-8 from a hover @ 1:26 causes engine failure and a crash. Apparently the change in inlet pressure caused by the exhausts causes a flameout: There is a minimum launch speed for S-8 of 100 km/h for just that reason.

That's why I thought make it free to use for clients in MP. Be a shame to have all the time and effort go into it only to have it disappear into SP & still have the old carrier appearing in all the MP youtube clips.

there's enough turbulence caused by the rocket motors to flame out the engine - that should rock the aircraft

I once was a passenger out of Bangkok in an aircraft where the entire inside of the cabin did that as they turned the AC on - yeah, looked like a dry ice machine blowing over the seats.

Hi Dimitriov - Thanks, (but also I think that was worked out a while ago). The question is - what is the SAS accounting for ? OH-6 is a small aircraft, but so is the Hydra a small rocket - less than 4 kg, vs 11.4 kg for an S-8. Even firing Hydra in pairs might not produce much effect - very little weight change, very little exhaust gasses. The fact that the Ka-50 SAS is designed to compensate for some thing (& Kamov were involved in the development of the implementation we have in DCS) means there must be something to compensate for. I've posted videos showing both yaw and pitch from firing rockets and missiles. The yaw must logically be a reaction against the exhaust gasses from the rocket or additional drag / lift / loss of lift from the rotor as it suddenly finds itself in a stream of gas moving at high speed in the opposite direction to the rocket. Which is actually a culprit we haven't discussed.

Given what a small proportion of the purchasing population the MP community is (& that there will likely be a discount for existing hornet owners anyway), they could probably make it that to play offline off the supercarrier you have to own it, but to use it online only the person hosting has to... You'd have some people that bought the F/A-18, flew online and never bought the carrier, but probably most would buy it (both to own it, and to practice traps/landing procedures offline). & even if there were a few freeloaders, they'd still have to buy (one or more) something(s) to land on it with to use it, so it's still generating revenue.

But you fire several S-8 at a time... An AGM-65 weighs 200 kg - 300 kg An S-8 missile weighs 11.5 kg A pod holds 20 rockets. 4 pods carry 80. A 'long' salvo firing half each pod would remove 4*10*11.5 = 460 kg from the aircraft. That would change the trim at any speed. (on the M-8, setting salvo at 16 rockets per pod & stations 1-2-5-6 would remove 730 kg in a couple of seconds. Again, you'd expect some trim change.) On the subject of mavericks - at 1:59 in this video an AGM-65 is launched, and then the view switches to a mounted camera looking forward. If you pause and use the , & . keys to move back and forwards you can see the helicopter nose drop as the missile is launched.. HeLgLsM0eKg