upyr1
-
Posts
4382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by upyr1
-
The initial Thud Weasels were F models. The real issue though is whether or not we can get the proper tones -
we'll have to see if a FAC can chime in.
-
Someone's asking about adding Ronald Regan to the Super Carrier pack. While I like the Gipper and think that will be awesome, let's take a moment to think about his VP George HW Bush. He was a Naval aviator so we'd need a flyable TBF/M module that inludes his plane as a livery. Next we'd need the independence-class light carrier San Jacinto lastly the carrier which bares his name
-
Why not ask for the whole class? Regan would be awesome but if we get the Bush I'd love to have his WWII carrier the Independence-class light carrier San Jacinto
-
I'm not sure that is the case, the job of the JTAC/FAC is to act as the eyes on the ground and reduce the odds of friendly fire. While we're at it I'd also like to see some imporvments for Airbone facs
-
I know but I think writing thud would be funnier than writing bump on the F-105 thread
-
Thud What would be necessary to get the G?
-
When we get a Navy Phantom it should have the VTAS helmet mounted sights
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS: F-4E Phantom
these are legitimate reasons not to have them. However, if it is difficult to model them correctly then the discussion is moot. -
When we get a Navy Phantom it should have the VTAS helmet mounted sights
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS: F-4E Phantom
As much as I want the E, I hope we can get the D as well. My understanding the D would basically have a navy flight model and share a lot of avionics with the e. -
According to another thread laser guided weapons are hardcoded on the ground
-
When we make a template for a sam system, it should show up as available for any nation that uses said sam with all of the components in question
-
I think this is a good argument for the advanced Phantom 2K-type upgrades if we can't get the G. No USAF version of the E ever carried the HARM so there is no realistic interface. However, I would have to double-check if there is any advanced upgrade used by a foreign air force that uses the HARM.
-
Even if there are no plans for a G we need a better EW environment
-
I don't expect to ever see an HI G, however I'd love to see as many EW changes as possible so that we can at least get AI EW aircraft I'd love to have the EB-66 and F-105G, I don't know if we can but I'd love to see someone do a FOIA request, the worst thing that will happen is they say no. The real question is how many of these manuals are leaks vs real open-source material. I remember some time ago there was the SAM simulator I'd love to see the author convert that into a DCS module
-
Anyway since we only have Red, Blue and neutral your thoughts on having 2 irregular factions that incorporate everything vs multiple irregular factions that are themed by time/era?
-
Then when you are building missions don't use historical mode. Having the option to lock assets down makes it easier to build historical missions
-
I figure there are two ways to have more generic archetype. One is more irregular factions such as partisans, guerillas and so forth the other would be to have historical mode check the date and theater. For example you are using the Normandy map the irregulars are basically French resistance or werewolves.
-
I think that would be better as an additional model
-
There is no way we could get an HA Growler, we might be able to get a decent AI one, provided ED improves the EW module.
-
I was thinking about this after someone posted the request for real-world irregular/terrorist factions. While I see no point in adding Hamas, Isis, or Hezbollah, I do see some logic in having multiple irregular forces, mainly we could have a scenario with two irregular forces fighting. As DCS currently only has two combatants Red and Blue I figure two irregular factions could work. The insurgents, which we already have and the militia the two would be identical except for flags as the entire point is one would be hostile and other friendly irregular forces
-
The lack of small arms among other assets is one of the issues I have brought up. I am not too bothered by the lack of details however the lack of unit verity in terms of weapons would have a bigger affect on game play
-
Russia and the US are both viewed as legitimate nation-states by the governments of the world and most people. I don't know what the laws are like in Israel or any other mid-east nation but I would imagine it might anger someone
-
Dittos.
