Frostiken

Same, seen Idaho ANG taxiing around with canopies open...

Funny thing is that sometimes when you get hit bad enough the game will report that you're 'dead' because your aircraft took what it believes to be irrecoverable damage. Then you give the finger to the game and decide what is irrecoverable damage yourself :D

Okay, we get it, no need to lay on the hyperbole... - DU is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore - but natural uranium ore isn't smashed to particulate dust on the surface of the earth. It pretty much stays safely deep underground or in processing plants and reactors, so the comparison is a complete non-issue. - Criticism with DU is that it gets turned into this dust (and great quantities of it are used on single targets, this we know). While this may not be a problem with Iraqi tanks in the middle of a desert, what about on hardened targets in or near civilian populaces? - DU doesn't decay because as it is U238 it has a half-life on the order of millions of years. Additionally, there is negligible hazard from gamma radiation - however the primary health hazard is from inhalation or ingestion, where both radiological contamination can affect soft unprotected tissues, and the metal itself can contaminate the bloodstream. - Ipso facto, you destroy a tank with a couple hundred rounds of DU. The dust blows around, stays inside the wreck, buries itself into the soil. The contaminant seeps into groundwater or gets carried around by children or scavengers on the wreck, or gets into crops, and it could cause health issues. HOWEVER - There's really nothing to back up that this POTENTIAL for health issues is a serious threat. I have no doubt that DU contamination has caused health effects, but it is likely on a scale so small that no connection has ever been made. - Potential DU contamination is nowhere close to the scope of, say, Agent Orange poisoning. Most of the nonsense surrounding the use of DU is because people hear 'uranium' and tie it to Hiroshima. - DU hasn't been used in Afghanistan because that would be immensely stupid. There's nothing the Afghanis have that won't be blown to tiny little pieces by HEI - HEI is so effective against everything from vehicles to houses that even F-15Es use it to destroy personnel inside buildings. - Karzai is a complete tool.

+1. Go along with my 'civilian kills' idea.... All things considered I can't imagine that this is the most unreasonable idea - modeling the aircraft would probably be the most time-consuming aspect. Chart out some civilian flight corridors and have the aircraft follow them akin to the civilian cars on the roads.

I'm *highly* skeptical that flares are 'useless' against IR missiles, even modern ones. Serious [citation needed] on that one. Less effective? Sure. Useless though? Some points of contention: - Flares can and probably have long since been configured to burn with UV light. Plus, the sun would confuse this wavelength as much as IR. - The seeker head of an AIM-9M is INCREDIBLY tiny, with the actual aperture being smaller than the laser seeker head of a GBU-12 (not counting the argon bottle). I find the assertions that it can get a foolproof IR 'picture' of the aircraft 6-9 miles away absolutely laughable - flares at this distance would still be extremely effective. Compare the IR quality of an AGM-65 which has a much larger lens and aperture. I have no doubt that modern IR-guided missiles are far less susceptible to countermeasures than they used to be, but I would only believe the word of a Raytheon engineer or perhaps an actual combat pilot as far as just how much less susceptible they are - not random speculation on the internet or understandably biased websites where military hardware is discussed.

Hmm... the PAS doors never even open for me.

No, you misunderstood - I completely understand. I get it. I really do. It's a shame that you don't. I won't waste my breath on why I don't argue with what is tantamount to petty semantics, but it suffices to say that I'm sure if you wanted to talk enough, you could make a DCS: U-2 simulator sound exciting. In the end, you still only have three weapons that are all employed in the exact same fashion. That's what you don't get. Whether you have to 'close to get a VID' is totally, 100% irrelevant. Whether you maneuver to fire your missile in a way that maximizes the pK is totally, 100% irrelevant. AIM-120s and AIM-9Ms are all still employed in the exact same fashion. Everything that you do up to that point is aerial maneuvering and you do *not* need an air-to-air sim in order to experience that. I said that air-to-air could be exciting. Air-to-air is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to whatever multi-role fighter we get. Air-to-air only, however, would bore me to tears after... what? A month maybe? I'm not the only one who's expressed that sentiment. You may get a raging nerd-on for anything with the DCS name on it, but I don't, so please stop inferring in your passive/aggressive way that you think I'm clearly the most colossally ****ing stupid man on the planet because I dare to disagree with your almighty notion of what will maintain the interest of a gamer for the longest. To that I'll simply point out that there are people who get genuine excitement flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong in FSX so please stop pushing your opinion around as some sort of yardstick of intelligence.

There are factors involved with a BVR engagement, but it's all part of a BVR engagement. Just because he's at a higher altitude than you doesn't actually make it a newer and more exciting situation than if a tank convoy was driving east instead of west. The point is this - let's say there's vehicles on the road. You have the choice of strafing them with a gun (which changes your range engagement, your attack profile, opens you up to AAA threats), you can use an AGM-65 (you have the screen, you select targets, get in the range envelope), you can use an LGB (allowing you to buddy laze, bomb lofting). None of those options are alike and depending on the situation on the ground or weather-wise your options could disappear or open up dramatically. You have three choices in an F-15C - lock them up with radar and fire an AIM-120 / AIM-7 (unlikely, they're almost never anymore in the USAF), close range and lock them up with an AIM-9 (or fire a -9X OBS for LOAL), or strafe them with guns. Don't argue petty semantics about how 'flying defensively' somehow changes the fact that you're still pointing your radar at them and waiting for the shoot tone/light. Might as well argue that strafing with guns is different because I can use HEI mix instead of CM... Uh huh :) You would, because that's just how export aircraft work. Everything in our books labaled 'NOFORN' and 'Classified' isn't going to leave the country. I got sniped by this one but I said dedicated air interceptor. You know, like the F-15C - "Not a pound for air to ground." The F/A-18C isn't a dedicated air-interceptor. I understand what you mean by this but not what result you expect - AI and mission design aside, all the weapons and aircraft already exist, and the F-15C already functions in a workable format in LOMAC, so what more could they do to make it more engaging than pickling off a slammer at a contact 40 miles out? An F-15E hands down. The F/A-18C cannot physically carry enough 'stuff' to be outfitted for 'every role', not if it wants to actually reach its target without falling out of the sky for lack of fuel. How about you educate me with your infinite knowledge on the topic and provide your professional references and real-life experience for everything you mention. Or instead can you please not be a complete condescending asshat? That post was pretty much completely uncalled for. Pray tell me how the actual air-to-air engagement in DCS: F-15C is going to be worlds apart from the air-to-air engagements already available in Falcon 4 or, even, LOMAC.

Yes which I mentioned, but all the same there's almost no simulators for Russian aircraft, whereas the PC sim crowd is undoubtedly going to recognize more than a few USAF cockpits.

I would argue that there's far, far more ways to approach an air-to-ground situation, multiplied by your various weapons with their own delivery methods and specialized purposes, whereas there's only really three approaches to air-to-air - BVR missiles, WVR missiles, and ACM (and WVR / ACM tends to be the same thing). I also think part of the reason I'm turned off by this is because most of the excitement is going to be had in WVR engagements, and I got tired of aerial gunfights in WW2 combat sims, where that's all aerial combat *is*.

Yeah I'll believe that when I see it :D I'm not saying air-to-air isn't fun, but if that was the only thing you could do, what would be the point? Take the campaigns, for example. Imagine you were in an F-15C instead of an A-10C - would the campaign really matter? Fly to X, shoot down MiGs. The only weapons you can pick from are AIM-9Ms, AIM-9Xs (maybe), and AIM-120Cs. Yeah, I'm not feeling it. It would undoubtedly have its moments, but for that to be the only thing the module really offers... nah. Air-to-ground presents far more possibilities than air-to-air really does.

30" @ 2560x1600 beats the crap out of your dumb 16:9 TV :D I personally found the KA-50 to be extremely complicated for a few reasons - - Helicopters are ****ing hard. Fixed-wing aircraft are pretty simple control-wise and the dynamics of flight are fairly common-sense to most people, especially those who have any interest in computer simming. - It's Russian, and therefore susceptible to quirks only Russians would think to implement. Like the fact that the ABRIS and the little navicompything are not integrated with each other whatsoever. I found the A-10 much, much easier, but includes the fact that I was already familiar with much of the avionics, and there's certain design in most USAF aircraft that tends to be similar in various airframes, especially those from the same time period.

That's also quite a claim without a lot to back it up... No aircraft is going to be the 'best' at everything - the F/A-18C has a more powerful radar than the F-16, but the F-16 is far more nimble and has a greater thrust/weight ratio that would tear the F/A-18 to bits in ACM - so how do you decide which one's better? :) I would argue that an F-16 is better than an F/A-18C in most situations, due to a few things such as more up-to-date avionics, as well as the fact that it isn't nearly as crippled as the F/A-18 is in regards to range and loiter time. Ultimately though, DCS is about air-to-ground warfare and is why I highly, HIGHLY doubt there will ever be an air interceptor study-sim - because nobody wants to fly around waiting for radar contacts to fire some missiles off at, and then turn around and go home - ED has spent too much time on all the ground warfare stuff to try to push a game where all you can do is ineffectually strafe them with your gun and dodge SAMs. So we don't need a fighter that is good 'in any random scenario', we need a fighter that is good in most scenarios, but is extremely capable air-to-ground. So I wouldn't take EITHER of those sad little toys :) Also, if you were to face a USAF F-16 against an RCAF F/A-18C, the F-16 would obliterate the F/A-18. Nothing against the RCAF, but unless Canada's built their own radar package, the F/A-18s radar is going to be far less powerful than USAF versions simply because that's how export aircraft work. We nerf the **** out of planes, and any sort of defense item sold to another country has been meticulously detailed - if we sold you a countermeasures pod, you can guarantee that any flaw in the tuning agility or limitations in how it works has been noted so it can be exploited.

You're right. It's essential!

80,000 feet and climbing? DCS: Space Shuttle Discovery? PS: Any aircraft with a thrust/weight ratio lower than 1 under typical loading cannot be considered 'fast' :/ F/A-18C? Might as well be DCS: Wright Flyer, psha!

Funny that you say that because it appears the majority of people are against a non-Superhornet F/A-18 due to how terribly limited it is.

That simultaneously appears to be incredibly cool and yet the dullest thing I could possibly imagine simulating. .... .... .... .... .... *bloop* "Hmm, what was that?" .... .... "Huh." .... * B2 HAS KILLED FROSTIKEN *

And before anyone says it, for the love of god, yes, the F-15 *does have* a fly-by-wire system of sorts.

<_< >_> Does JHMCS qualify as 'nice to have'? :D

Complain to the crew chief, shut down, and step to a spare. :D

I'll also add what has helped greatly in getting pilots on the right track in reality is the Sniper XR pod, which features a video down-link processor and antenna, which allows the pilot to send his pod video to the JTAC on the ground, who can watch what he is targeting. Pretty f'n nifty. Me, I'll settle for a JTAC that talks too much than one that doesn't talk enough.

Funny story about this - in the F-15E we recently began upgrading our UFCs to NVIS-modified ones. ^ ^ ^ Old style v v v New style One change made to the UFC is that the screen now has a three-position switch that sets NIGHT, DAY, and OFF. For several weeks we had multiple pilots coming down Code-2 and maybe even Code-3 for their UFCs being inop, because they didn't realize they now had to turn them on. Pilots are dumb. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On another note, I wonder if whenever we get DCS: F-15E we'll get back-patches to implement functional IFF systems... are they even functional now? I turn it on because it *should* be on, and I once turned on a HUD mode that showed 'reply' all the time, though the game crashed horribly when I tried to turn it off so I haven't played with it since.

The real-life slew (or TDC as I'm more familiar with it) works with a set of 8 variable resistors in the four directions offered, two each. One resistor works for fine movements and one for coarse. It can slew diagonally by simply combining analog inputs.

Well, before they get in, they also look inside the panels and shit like they know what the **** they're doing... :D

I think a neutered version of the labels are fair (I replaced mine with red dots that only show up at super-close range) for three reasons: 1) JTAC, AIs suck ass at informing you of threats. --- JTAC doesn't inform you of new threats, absolutely does not give you up to date information on moving targets and only tells you where they were when you asked no matter how long ago that was (SERIOUSLY?!), and could really stand to give better information in general ("Two Zeus in formation... SA-8 3 miles north of coordinates...") --- AIs can 'find' things but are terrible at communication - all they do is yell about Mud Spikes which isn't useful at all in a battlefield saturated with AAA. How about you use our fancy net and your bitchin' pod to point it at a threat and send me that information? 2) Computers do a terrible job of simulating finding targets in real life. --- Poor visual fidelity as a result of being on a computer monitor. I propose that they implement an optional system of non-linear inverse perspective scaling, wherein at certain distances, distant objects actually get a little bit larger so that they can't 'hide' between pixels. --- Lack of real-world visuals, like great clouds of dust behind tanks tearing up a field, or general clouds and detritus from battle. 3) The targeting pod. --- Remarkably hit-or-miss FLIR modeling means tanks can hide in plain sight in the middle of an open field. I'm playing with labels off right now but there's no shame in turning them on (though I'd recommend nerfing them a bit, mostly because the huge complicated labels are useless and ugly). Hopefully someday we'll have solutions to these problems.