Frostiken

Whoops. Still, 40 < 200+ :D

-1

Glad to hear it. Naturally recording damage for the 200 bomblets of an 87 would be unreasonable but given that the 97 only has 20 skeets, hopefully that means it'll return to life in 1.0.x.y as a 'smart' weapon :)

I actually had this problem myself, and just fiddling with HOTAS figured it out. What's weird is that I *don't* think I'd ever come across this problem before...

Fair enough. I just got the impression that your argument hinged on this belief that including enhanced damage on ground targets, to include infantry, you automatically equated it to this:

You could say that about every game. But nobody does, your logic and rationalle is a completely absurd double-standard, and that arguing about violence in games was old hat when it was regarding Mortal Kombat in the 90s. Can you even draw a line between 'too real' violence? Right now, they're virtual human fascimilies that fall over with a death animation. Is that too real for you? Should they just blink and disappear like in an old arcade game? Should they be obvious non-humans, maybe zombies or even angry dinosaurs? Keep in mind even the comical deaths of TF2 was 'too real' for Germany and they replaced them with robots that explode with gears. Me, I want war in my wargame. On that note, this might be one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard.

Do I even have to point out the ridiculous flaw in *that* parallel? Virtual Russians. Real people. Uh, yeah, so why bother getting upset about it? Let's put it this way - why don't you just fly around dropping BDUs, firing TP rounds and training rockets then, if the violence aspect shouldn't appeal to anyone? Why did they even bother letting you fire the gun on 'real' targets? I'm sure I can find some people that would find the idea of even glorifying a war machine to be unreasonable. Also tone down your sensationalism. Nobody's asking for "very real depictions of death". Nobody's asking for virtual pixel-men to crawl around screaming their little .wav screams, leaving a trail of digital pixel intestines behind them, clutching their make-believe little leg stumps and moaning about their pretend little textures painted on them. Even if it were just ragdolls that would be fine. Do you have these arguments with every game that features any sort of blood?

More from a combined-ops immersion standpoint. Then again it'd be great fun to use an F-15/16/18 to simulate :D

No but you can see it on the TPod. People don't just fall over dead when you drop 200 pounds of tritonal on them. Pilots don't just have a clean job and simply fly around having fun, pushing a button that makes someone somewhere die. They actually watch these people get torn to bits: Implementation of such could be accomplished by simply breaking parts of the model off. Don't have to have bloody-stump textures and shit like that, just break the model to pieces and ragdoll them around. Actually it really shouldn't have much of an FPS hit. A few random-shaped chunks of debris that get thrown out of the model when it's destroyed. Wow, glad to hear you hold people who serve in the military in such high regard. We're all just a bunch of baby-rapists to you, right? The way I see it, being opposed to the real violence that accompanies real warfare with the very aircraft you're killing virtual Russians with is hypocritical and immature. I'm sorry those of us in the military don't adhere to the lofty moral standards of Conure and Shagrat, but war is hell and this is a simulation of it. Requesting ragdoll physics for infantry and limb separation from high-explosive impacts isn't unreasonable, and if you can't stomach virtual violence in your virtual A-10 on your computer, safe and comfortable in your home while casually badmouthing people who put their life on the line so you can enjoy the freedoms you have (a hilariously hypocritical stance for a German to take...), well, maybe you should just stop playing war games altogether. I think the real people who are immature and are sick and twisted are those who would be unable to draw a line between reality and a game with the inclusion of gore.

No. Still good times though :)

The UK may be a nanny state but nothing can stop you from getting it on Steam or digital download... I'm all for gore, as well as just battle damage in general. For example, dropping a GBU-38 on a BMP is going to do more than just set it on fire - it'll punch through the roof and blow it to pieces. Bits of wreckage lying around... legs and arms get knocked off by explosions... direct hits with bombs turn people to little glowing bits all over the ground... :)

Why not?

Speaking of the new info on the ME, what are the weird black circles randomly scattered around? With numbers like 1422 over them?

A back-seater isn't 'vital' if the game lets you hot-swap seats... at best you would have a rudimentary AI to control some basic tasks, but there's not a lot you can't do from either cockpit in an F-15E. You can slew around the TPod in the front seat, you can use all the flight controls in the back seat. Certain actions are limited, for example you don't have FULL control of the TPod in front, and you don't have all the HOTAS functions like the speedbrake in the back, but essentially the idea is that you're either flying and need those tasks, or you're bombing and don't.

oh jeez the new FLIR!

Oh, SEs... right... hah!

Future plans, so that, as mentioned, they don't have some **** cybersquatting on a useful URL?

Turn off the RALT?

Except we already know it's a fixed-wing US Fighter. And the same can be said of the F-15E - models and sounds for weapons like AGM-130s are in the files but not used in-game.

That or F-35 which I think I'd like to see the most since I know almost nothing about it. But the F-22 is too classified, and the F-35 doesn't even functionally exist yet, so... old school 1970s airframes it is :D

As much as I despise how limited the airframe is, I'd happily welcome F/A-18 over F-16 (come to think of it, they both have the same problems). The only point of complaint for Falcon 4 is the graphics which is rather stupid because with the right mods it's really not that bad. DCS: F-16 would actually be a massive step back due to the lack of mods and environments, the uprooting of the community, as well as features that DCS simply doesn't offer like the dynamic campaign. It has to be said that desiring an F-16 above all else is a really stupid and selfish desire, since having a NEW airframe not seen in a modern sim is a hell of a lot better than a copy-paste remake of a sim for a crappy little disposable single-engine piece of crap that the USAF can barely find a use for these days that is going to rapidly find itself rotting in the desert at Davis Motham... all because the graphics aren't quite pretty enough? What a waste of time and money. I mean, what do you really expect? It's an F-16 sim. They don't exactly have creative freedom to fabricate cool new features for it. As was mentioned a while back, if DCS: F-16 comes out, all that you're going to find on this forum are people bitching that "Falcon 4 did ___ better".

God no. I'd rather eat a bullet than see "Yet Another F-16 Sim". Might as well slap a Call of Duty label on it for how boring and overused that airframe is. Back to Falcon 4 kthx. Actually as a serious point, it probably wouldn't. The F-16, A-10, F-15, and even the F-14 have a lot of 'sex appeal' and the civilian sector are more familiar with them. The F/A-18C certainly does not. Compounding the problem is that almost anyone familiar with the F/A-18 is more likely familiar with the Superhornet, so people buying it and then finding that they're flying its retarded crippled cousin would probably confuse a lot of people. I have no doubt that the current DCS market would buy it up, but as for attracting new people, well, there's really nothing I could find that would draw me to the airframe. Certainly not based on how it looks, god no.

First time I've heard of that... you sure it's not for export variants? I can see Singapore buying that... we don't even have V2 AESA radars yet, getting a cockpit overhaul to fit a bigger display in seems iffy to me. Do you have the ability to scan the pages and send them to me in a .pdf? I'd like to hear more about what Boeing said on this.

See? All is well :D Besides, you have to admit the idea of being forced to design missions to accommodate 10-16 players is overwhelmingly retarded since the idea of a dozen F-16s engaging enemies in some sort of massive WW2 style aerial furball is so far beyond the realm of reality.... If anything, two-seaters will take the edge off of having to do such a thing, since real-life combat missions are typically only two- or four-ship affairs anyway.

I'm having a hard time understanding how, if you have a joystick that was made since at least the early 2000s, that you can't just use the hat switch that's on every single one.