OB1

Ah, cheers. The kind of civilized response I was after. So do you think its modelled in DCS fairly well and people are just launching in bad/poor conditions ? Are you saying only 13 Aim120's have been launched in combat scenarios since 1991 ?

The secrets out :music_whistling:

Yeah, and I believe all it had to do to earn the name slammer was to score 3 hits.

If you read a tad more carefully you would realise I was asking in my original post rather un-provocatively, a question and left it open for a civilized and informed responses, But since you insisted to post with added attitude how did you expect anyone to respond ?

Right sorry, because the USAF named something slammer must make it good then.

Have to agree that the missiles need more simulation work but isn't the pk of the AIM-120 poor in real life anyway ? Not sure anyone's got the actual figures but I'm pretty sure the actual hit miss ratio for all real BVR situations in real life combat are very poor. On top of that, in DCS we can perform some serious defending as we are not subject to the same effects a real pilot would be faced with.

Cheers guys, thank you very muchly :)

Ah cheers, guess we wait for a fix. One more thing since we on the topic of the Sukoi, radar usage determining altitude range being scanned, on the f-15 it indicates min and max scan alt. Does the Sukoi have a similar indication ? And using TWS does it indicate scanned targets alt like in the f-15 ? Thanks again.

Heyas, just a quickie - In the Su-33 when you activate or de-activate your ECM where in the cockpit is the indicator that indicates to you it is turned on or off ? Cheers :pilotfly:

Yes it is hard but you don't need to be that proficient at it to refuel successfully. The problem most people have is the feedback as a game cannot give you a perfect awareness of momentum, drift that you feel in real life. That in conjunction with either cheap low resolution flight controllers or controllers sensitivity not calibrated correctly or both, and of course general proficiency which only gets better with time in the seat. I personally would not be content with a compromise in difficulty as I strive for realism in simulation, and this is one game in a very niche market that provides a level of simulation I am satisfied with. Simply put I would not get the same level of satisfaction after a successful in-flight refuel if it was dumbed down. I'm perfectly content pealing away from a tanker stiff, white knuckled and dripping with sweat :joystick:

On the old Sukhoi front I'd like to see the Su-15 Interceptor. On the old Mikoyan front either the Mig-23 or Mig-25. Hopefully in the future we'l see all 3 :joystick:

I think they should just add a whole bunch of planned aircraft so potential backers can see whats to come.. Most people are short sighted and when they see what they are offering (which may seem measly to some ) they dismiss the fact more will come. So they should add more aircraft so people can see that there will be more coming but don't set a date for them.

That's encouraging. That's not.

Personally I think one of the possible reasons why the kickstarter is not generating as much interest as we thought is: Not enough aircraft on the first stretch. We only get 2 aircraft for the extra $275,000. Most of the money most likely goes into the campaigns for those planes but to be honest I don't care at all for the campaigns I just want more aircraft. RRG can make the campaigns later once they are established perhaps, or let the community generate some missions while campaign lovers await? My preference is multiplayer, multiplayer missions are far easier than full singleplayer campaigns to create.. We have a situation where we don't have many aircraft to make multiplayer overly attractive and the main reason is the campaign development ? So what do the majority prefer ? Multiplayer + more aircraft or is single player more important ? Maybe RRG should setup a vote for a change in stretch goal features ? As Europe 1944 is very reminiscent of il2 1946 and perhaps that is the audience it is trying to attract. Then I think perhaps it should be more multiplayer orientated as multiplayer is what kept il2 1946 alive and so active. Just trying to bounce some ideas around, what do people think ?

luthier !! Ok.... ooooook.... you know what all is forgiven, kinda, and for some strange reason I cannot understand I will help you. BUT ! If I ever see a phantom dot in the sky again.... remember Ezekiel 25:17.

As I said a few times in the past, I'll hold until multiplayable positions have been implemented. Until then no multiseat aircraft, Its kinda a big deal for me as I solely play multiplayer. However Mi-8 may get special consideration - Is the fixed weapon positions completely controlled by the pilot or does the co-pilot have a part in with the main armament ? (In a real world situation) & Do any multiplayer missions have a use for a non-combat aircraft yet ? Example: any interaction to ground troops been implemented yet or logistic type missions ? Been out of the game for a bit so I'm amiss with the upkeep of dev information.

I'll take that as Gospel, you guys always have nice days right ? :)

+1 for a modernized variant and I will show you the money :)

Bwahaha, yeah remember reading about that, quite amusing.

:lol: Love the way you put that. Apart from the 2 F-35's contracted isn't the Australian air force canning the rest of the orders of F-35's ? Have another Q: Since our craft do get used around the world and the Aust navy doesn't have carriers, how does the Aust air force transport the hornets? Fly them all over the world, pack them up in a box and ship them out or do they have a permanent garrison in the USAF ?

Thanks for the update. Hope everything is well, I have family there. NZ better stick around, its one of the most beautiful countries I have ever been to.

LOL That's because the Australian air force is your air force. It should be called RAZAF. Don't worry if anyone attacks NZ the Australian air force will run out of fuel getting there :)

:megalol: I see no reason why they can't. But is the current Australian air force strictly a defense force due to political reasons ? Also is the absence of aircraft carriers a result of this ? Thirdly does these political policies prevent the Australian air force from meddling in foreign affairs as it could be considered as offensive act ? Jebus full of questions I am today, but it is of genuine interest. How often does the Australian airforce operate outside of Aust ?

I have 1 tiny, not a big deal *cough* wish for the Su-25. Su-25 modeled to DCS A-10c detail, then I will buy it :)

Absolutely sexy. If only the ocean looked that good in DCS..