Zakatak

Razer Artemis Razer is a PC gaming company that caters mostly to the FPS and RPG markets, and they make gamepads/mice/keyboards/mousepads/headsets. The Artemis has recently been revealed, and it is their first joystick. It isn't actually in production yet, and only a non-functional concept has been revealed, but it will be made. The thing is, it isn't built for flight simulators. It was designed for Mechwarrior Online, which is the first iteration of Mechwarrior since MW4 is 1999. As a huge Battletech nerd, I am supremely excited for MWO. But I also play flight sims, and if the Artemis is only useful for 1 game, I don't think it would be worth the price at all. From what I can see: Has a pinky trigger to act like a shift, or maybe just another trigger Trigger, unknown if 1 stage or 2 stage Large MFD, rumors of it being a touchscreen 8-way hat, or possibly thumbstick Two 4-way hatswitches, or one 4-way hatswitch and 1 button on the thumbrest 2 buttons on the stick, one bottom left and one top right Possibly a cylindrical mode/profile selector on the top left of the stick, like an X52 Appears the 3 pieces can detach Small throttle with a single thumb button, slides instead of tilts 12 buttons and possibly a 'spacebar' below it Spring and pot, like the X52 Metal construction Obviously mechs don't handle like aircraft. Accelerations are rapid in lighter mechs, and require a smaller throttle you can flick up and down. Most HOTAS and even joysticks have large throttles that you wrap your hand around. How would a smaller throttle like that work in a flight game? Another issue is the MFD. Is the information displayed specific to one game, or can it display the DSMS of the A-10C, for example? If it is touchscreen, that would add a vast array of extra functions (24 with the pinky switch for the keypad alone). I haven't had problems with Razer products in the past, and my mouse/pad/keyboard are all Razers. I'm OCD and would like to complete the set. But this is their first joystick, and I doubt they have any expertise in that area, and using a spring rustles my jimmies. I don't want to buy one if it only works for 1 game, even if I LOVE the design. What do you guys think of it?

I believe Closed Beta is starting, although I haven't recieved an invite yet. Even if I did, I couldn't tell you anyway. :) Recently released artwork for some of the mechs: Cataphract (70 tons) "Custom" Catapult (you get this if you purchase the 60$ Founders Package, no tactical advantage over the original but you pay less for repairs)

Not sure how many of you guys played the grand Mechwarrior 2, but for those of you who did, I suggest you check this out. MWO will be a "lite sim" much like Wings of Prey or Lock On, but instead of planes, you get mechs from the 31st century. Think of it as doing alot of terrain masking in an AT-802U. So far, 95000 have signed up, and considering that signing up has no tangible benefit other then forum access, it would be safer to say that number is more around 150k. The beta is set to release this summer, with 12 mechs. It is Free 2 Play, but not Pay 2 Win. Give it a look if you like tactical, team oriented gameplay with simulation aspects.

DCS: Starfury please! Pretty please? It looks so freakin' mean. And it's probably the only space fighter design that NASA has actually considered producing in the future (as a space forklift, boringly). You wouldn't need to model terrain at all, just some ships/jumpgates/planets/etc. Inclusion of the Thunderbolt/Stealth/Heavy Starfury too please. They are faster then Vipers and more realistic then X-Wings and more powerful then A-10. Win win win! This seems like a troll/joke thread, but you'd be surprised how serious I am.

I think they could have used better looking gameplay. I assure you that it will be alot more interesting then 2 assault mechs slowly wading around the water, lasering eachother. Even though it is relatively simple compared to a DCS game (battlemechs not existing might be a reason for that...), but the realism and fidelity is certainly there. Example, if you stand in shallow water, you won't get a faster cooldown rate. Unless you mount heatsinks on your legs of course, which would give you that benefit. If you were to mount all your heatsinks on 1 arm,the weapons on that arm would have little affect on your heat, but the weapons on your other arm would be blisteringly hot. This is also the first mech game I know that includes ammo cookoff/capacitor bursting/etc. Good on the devs. I'll be in the Catapult. I'll soften you up from a kilometer, and then I'll swoop in with my jumpjets and DFA your shiny metal ass!

I want the DCS: SSV Normandy. Now.

I'm not sure if anybody played the grand ol' Mechwarrior 2 on their dial-up, but if you didn't, you missed out! After 11 years without a single game (if you want to count that MW4V crap), a new Mechwarrior Online trailer is out. Pretty nice cockpit actually. Might be a good place to put your HOTAS and TrackIR to use. :smilewink: http://www.gamesradar.com/mechwarrior-online-exclusive-trailer/

If the module ended up being AV-8B Harrier II+, how would you guys react?

TF34-GE-100 engines = ~9000lbs of thrust each F404-GE-402 engines = ~17500lbs of thrust each Barely? Nearly twice. I believe the 7.5g is the statistic for a Hornet WITH stuff on it. With just a pair of Sidewinders and a centerline, 9g (or just under) should be plenty achievable.

"Any fighter is better then the Hornet for any given situation, but no fighter is better then the Hornet for any situation given." - anonymous I'm biased towards the legacy Hornet mainly because I'm Canadian. Although I don't see how the Hornet could possibly be a "bad" option. It can do pretty much any role, it can operate land or sea, night or day. There is little to no classified information regarded its systems. If DCS takes the Super Hornet route, then the Navy can use it to train pilots (like the A-10C). People say "carrier ops, nuthin' special", but I would personally love to land in peasoup fog at night going off nothing but my instruments, wouldn't you? Even if carrier ops aren't your thing, they can always include a Canadian/other campaign. I suppose limited ammunition and range could be a problem, but I don't mind having to refuel/reload halfway through a mission providing the carrier is relatively close to shore. I haven't had to refuel for the sake of safety in an Eagle Dynamics game yet (only for a challenge). So ya, that's my defense for DCS Hornet. Warning, honest opinion ahead! I love the F-15/22, but the idea of being limited to one country, one role, one branch bores me. If we get something that isn't the Hornet (preferably legacy), give me the Mudhen or AV-8B+. Strike Eagle is the sexiest plane ever made, and no Harrier sim exists since Jet Thunder is pretty much dead.

WW2 aircraft are simple and don't require an entire game dedicated to only one. You want a P-51, play 1946/WoP/CoD/Janes Fighters/etc. It's development time that could be put toward the next DCS module (Hornet/Mudhen plz!). Nothing against the P-51 or WW2, just that I think it is reduntant.

I would just prefer it. Wouldn't you? What seems more efficient: - Flaming Cliffs - Black Shark - Flamings Cliffs 2 + Compatibility patch - DCS A-10C + Compatibility patch - Black Shark 2 + Compatibility patch - Flamings Cliffs 3 60$ for each iteration, each a slight improvement in graphics/gameplay over the last. Why not this? - DCS Lockon + Black Shark + Map Extensions + Su-25 (new flight model) + A-10C + Nevada + Black Shark 2 additions + Flaming Cliffs 3 additions + F/A-18? (guessing here) The main game being 40$ (with Flaming Cliffs equipment), with each new aircraft being another 30$ (10$ for terrain/other). Graphics and otherwise being updated continously and free.

I say when the US Fixedwing is done, we throw the A-10C, USFW, Ka-50, and (clickable) SU-25/T, as well as every square inch of terrain done thus far, put it all in one game and call it DCS: Lock-on. Then any aircraft done after that is just added in with DLC.

Is the AV-8B Harrier II+ out of the question for the next sim? Fixed-wing, US aircraft, never done before, definite possibility. Having both the VRS Superbug and DCS Super Hornet out seems... redundant. Same is true for me if we got DCS Falcon (thanks to the new BMS Falcon 4).

You can't accurate debate or record flight performance. In a debate, each side will only state flaws about the opposing side, and inflate the positives of his side. In a competition, one aircraft will always be more loaded then another. Malaysia pitted F/A-18's flying with 3 externals and sidewinders up against perfectly clean MiG-29's. Guess who won that battle.

I dislike Triple-A

So what if I have no ability to use missiles? I don't think there is any regulation against opening the cockpit, and throwing rocks at the enemies intakes :music_whistling:

Britain vs. Argentina = unbalanced USA vs. Iraq = lolwut? Half the world vs. Half of Libya = lmao Eagle? Naw. Mudhen? Please!

I think the Falklands would be the perfect theater to try, unfortunately Jet Thunder already has that covered. It hasn't been done (to my knowledge), it was (relatively!) balanced in terms of skill/power of the 2 forces, and the aircraft are something new and interesting. Modern enough to have a learning curve, ancient enough for some close-in action. Call me crazy, but a blasting away Skyhawks with twin 30mm cannons in a Sea Harrier? Going heater-only with a Mirage? Replicating Black Buck missions in the Vulcan? Landing vertical in a storm in my Gr3? Hot. Ness. If Jet Thunder never gets finished, you guys oughta goferit ;)

Watched the track again. The ghost-JDAM from before actually dropped and hit its mark. 2 Mavericks and a GBU-12 hit its mark before it all went down the shitter again. Aircraft has a brain fart, then it dives at the ground firing cannons and crashes. Watched it again. It followed my inputs an extra 5 minutes. Is there a possible explanation?

So I decided to load up an Instant Action mission and give it a go solo. First of the 5 options. I start, I tell me Wingman to RTB at the beginning over the UHF. Then I spend the next 20-something minutes completing the mission myself, and I did quite good actually. All my bombs landed on target, didn't get a scratch on my hog. So I decided I would load up FRAPS and take a video. Go to replays, watch the track, record from the start. So the video does exactly as I did most of the way. Gunned the transports, missiled the infantry, blah blah, here comes the Bridge. Maverick away, hits the ZSU-23-4. Here comes the bridge, JDAM is ready, release authorized... ... ...the bomb doesn't release. I DID release it at that point, when I actually had played the mission, but not here, I sail over it. And then the next 10 minutes is my aircraft wandering around the skies, still under control, but doing nothing that I remember, almost as if controlled by a ghost. Then it crashes into the ground. So, what the **** just happened? Does it have to do with me using the time acceleration controls (+LShift/Alt/Ctrl + Z)

The Iroquois engine was fitted to a B-47 Stratojet for testing, actually, in the air. It was also tested to a simulated Mach 2.3 @ 70,000ft. If the bay wasn't anything new or strange, why did you doubt its existence when I first mentioned it? As for the FBW, what the hell kind of documentary was I watching then? I thought the wings were simply too thin for any kind of standard system, and instead had inputs of the stick transferred to the control surfaces by electric currents.

Yes, it had side-looking radar and missile bays that are not unlike the F-22/F-35. Orenda Iroquios engines produced 30,000lbs of thrust on afterburner, the Arrow MkII has 2 of them. If Diefenbaker did not cancel it, it wouldn't have been matched as an interceptor until the MiG-25 Foxbat (by which time it would have gotten several upgrades). EDIT: Oh, and forgot, it was the first to use fly-by-wire, which wasn't repeated until the Concorde (and then F-16)

Avro Arrow MkII, pretty please? The US got our government to kill this program off so we could buy some shitty missiles and F-101 Voodoo's instead. Step above anything Russia or USA had in the late50's/early 60's. 60,000+ lbs of thrust, side looking radar, retractable missile bays, Mach 3, 70,000ft, all that jazz. Not the MkI though, those just had some Pratt & Whitney J75's for testing purposes. This thing and the TSR.2 could have been world-beaters. Also, Space Shuttle had alot of roots in this, so thank the designers of this plane.

How about ejection as seen in this video? Skip to 2:07