Kaktus29

i can't agree with the article.. to much wishful thinking and not understanding core reality behind Japan attacking US.. First of all, Manchuria was won, second of all China cannot be defeated unless Japan would have the fuel and resources for it-ergo Japan launching ever more deeper attacks into Asia(Philipines, Singapore etc).. obviously clashing with Brits,and US colony philipines.. so, question boils down to.. is pre-emptive attack useful or not.. article argues it was not cuz the main fleet was not in pearl harbour or its not because it would super-charge the ppl in america to fight back .. but that is all useless talk, reality is-pre-emptive attack works, if its pre-emptive and surprise attack in the first place-which japan attack on pear harbour definitely wasn't.. US knew about the attack coming, and ppl in US at the time were mostly isolationist and didn't want any war in europe or asia.. only reason to allow such an attack was to mobilize the population to support war on japan.. And japan also didn't have any other option as sanctions US put back in 1940 not to mention supplying chinese with weapons 2 fight chinese even further back than 1939.. So US was waging war on japan for quite some time,but couldn't make it a hot direct war for reasons i mentioned above.. its a classic "put sanctions till opponent is cornered and fights back and then enter into war and kill it".. no big deal here.. but japan was doomed no matter what they did.. to me more interesting is Japan industrialization that was heavily supported by US back in 1850-70.. not to mention US,UK training of Japan navy in late 19th century for what would be first attack on Russian empire by proxy-japan in 1905.. US back in 1850 saw that bigger problem for domination will be China and definitely not a small island Japan..so they rightfully figured its better to arm to the teeth Japan which would be used as a "useful idiot" to strike at China, thus destroying or at least weakening China while Japan exhaust itself and comes under the wing of US as a satellite to which to this day remains.. Japan as an island is best actor to be used as a proxy as no matter how technologically strong or advanced they pose no danger to US due to lack or natural resources needed to fight a real prolonged war with any of the superpowers.. While China with a landmass and a continent behind would be a definitely no-no in US trying to make a puppet as soon as China would acquire enough technology it would break away from being a US satellite.. while Japan simply can't.. Only way Japan could have avoided the clash with US was to abide by US and come under its wing back in 1930-33's.. of course Japan cuz of Western supported victory over Russia in 1905 had misguided beliefs of its supremacy and changed course as an independent force-punishment for such delusions followed shortly with sanctions.. situation in 2WW was UK still a superpower-mostly shadow of its former self but still official superpower, US defacto superpower but still not recognized as such by the world, France-in the club of UK as a competitor slash wannabe superpower.. While Germany,Italy and Japan were the newcomers in the field of colonisation and tried to get a slice of the pie.. something UK couldn't have, US was intelligent enough to wait it out so both UK,France and Italy,Germany and especially main contented USSR exhaust themselves and US comes in for the win and even more importantly establishes its own economy and US dollar as main financial architecture on which world relies to this day.. So, its quite interesting yes, if u were a leader how would you do things differently to better your nation..its quite tough.. allot of calculations.. mostly you can't change things by force, by manipulation its best, and waiting with patience for the opponent to make a mistake or to be forced to make a move that will be bad, or be in a position where every move he makes it results in bad situation for him. a little bit like our situation today, where China mostly plays the role of Germany in a sense of coming of age and taking its rightful place but obviously being blocked by US-empire in decline(economically still far from militarily).. and the web of alliances and calculations done by other second-world powers behind the curtain..

yup, no politics here..just finally world recognition of DCS engine as awesome.. take that battlefied 4 )) lol..

Ukr./US intelligence showing supposed Russian artillery firing into Ukr. from RF territory is not only a fake but they used EDs product to manufacture it.. if you check the heating station complex you will see its 100% identical to our generic one in the game.. man, i thought CIA runs some hardcore computers with better graphics but it seems DCS is more than good enough.. http://russian.rt.com/article/43294

i wonder how much work would need to be done to model DCS Tu-22 -original version without modification as to have as much info possible to bring it to dCS standard.. i know i know, impossible not to mention the multi-crew environment problem that hasn't been dealt yet..but would love to fly in it, bombing, cruise missile attack, terrain hugging, and other stuff..refueling altough US insisted refuelling option to be put out and they succeeded in that.. otherwise this would be almost a strategic bomber if refueling ability not impeded..

well can't really complain at the complications,would be better if sooner release as most expected it.. i see ED tried to "sandwich" the news with showing its Edge benefits but didn't work out as they thought.. not their fault.. mostly ppl are getting jaded by being led one week after another to the promised land that no matter how many days,weeks, months they don't seem to reach it.. lol.. seriously, i think 2014 is getting to be a serious deadline for ED overall.. either stuff actually comes out and gets released or ppl will become so patient with ED they will become oblivious when ED does release a module.. fact is, PR should be done differently.. i have no problems as long as truth is told..if ED would come and say: here, this is reality, we are doing this and that, and progress rate is such, if no complication possible date is xx, if complications xxy.. and then give updates every month to see if more complications arouse (pushing deadline further) or less complications and product might come sooner... and this is it, i would be very grateful .. if ED comes out and says F-18 will come out in 2018 okei.. huraaa.. now keep me posted when you develop some of the systems, or whatever of the plane and i'll root for you and enjoy the proces.. problem is when vague statement are given that are then pushed further away.. ppl get seriously tired.. if no EDGE by 2014, if no mig-21 by end of 2014 i am sure at least of myself i'm giving myself a break from "hoping" ED delivers on their projects..

i do wonder how a big flight vs. flight goes on.. i mean 150 planes versus 150 planes.. just imagine, BVR starts, some missiles are launched, some defensive maneuvers employed(so, if planes are maintaining same altitude it means those doing the defensive maneuvers are risking crashing into their team-mates?)) or do they just dive to go below their team and ditch the approching missile? not to mention the jammered air-space and hundreds of planes doing defensive maneuvers its like merge no matter what you do.. must be scary since you can't really know if your side is winning or not..you can't make a decision is it better to ditch and save the plane or keep going .. reminds me of those knight-vs-knight fight when until you get a stick in the head you don't know if.. well you're going to get a stick in the head..

@blaze.. i disagree.. to do very good BFM you need to observe the enemy plane and make a move based on his move,not only that, you need to "see" his speed, banking, G-turns all on instinct .. you miscalculate this and boom you lost lot of energy or increased your radius simply because you are not good at it..

@gg of course BFM is something to study and learn, but again, its like training basketball, its your phyisial aspect of fighting if you will..while BVR is your strategy/tactics behind basketball.. so even if you are great basketball player you will loose badly if your team has bad strategy(coach tactician-bad BVR,technology etc,bad radar etc, etc) while other team is with better management, better strategy and worse players 1 on 1.. For this reason BFM is not something to beat yourself up with..i would be more worried about the upper echelon of the game which is BVR one.. if you lack tools to do that(tools as technology on your side) your options run dry pretty fast..

@blaze.. yes,but to do a good BFM you need to have a skill, you can't learn that, its like being natural basketball player, or natural soccer player.. some ppl have that "body intelligence" ..ability to move more elegantly and mostly have depth perception much better than others so they excel at sports when you anticipate a ball moving through the air and understanding how to move to intercept, control, manipulate the ball better than others.. this is not something you can LEARN, you can learn basics but never can you excel as someone who is natural at this.. while BVR is learning lots of frequencies, technical wizadry, and just hoping your side is more technologically advanced than the enemy and that is it pretty much.. Average pilots in hi-tech machine learning BVR non-stop with all the more-advanced radars,jammers,EWR,RWR will win against a super-natural-talented pilots who can pick up your speed and turn G-rate just by looking at your plane at 400 yards.. u get the point now?..

i think overall the Encyclopedia can be much better and much more indepth.. i mean just copy-paste the whole wikipedia and be done with it.. seriously.. when you go and check out mig-29, or kh29, or f16 its also quite barren.. when there is a sea of info to put in there..i'm not saying write it all on your own ED, just use outside proven cleared data.. i would especially appreciate information about unguided rockets and how much each penetrates armor or fragments how much of soft targets at what radius etc.. if all this is "classified" at least give us some approximation so one can plan accordingly.. about Peter the Great, well it is a great ship with great many systems and weapons..its only natural to go in full detail) but yeah if one goes into detail you can fill pages with a small boat carrying an MG also.. to me it looks ED didn't bother too much with encyclopedia for some reason so we have what we have..

biggest problem to do real good BFM is obviously watching the enemy as you pass each other (merge) or as you hunt him as he is anywhere from 9-3 o'clock in front of you.. with this i mean, you have to see it really good, or as good as RL does it.. what is the reaction time, how good do you see, ..here its about having good monitor, graphic card, no lag, etc etc..many factors that are not the same with most players..so its not even playground from the beggining. And you need to see the movement of the enemy very good in order to re-balance your BFM, do you increase throttle, do you put more G's, less G's.. one mistake if you are flying against ACE pilot and its over, you can't get back the energy you blundered with a unneeded move.. but all in all, BVR is i would say a different category.. its more hi-tech and less skill oriented.. i mean its more computer thingy than skill thingy.. a computer nerd if you teach him the procedures will do good BVR, but hard to teach a good BFM, you need a good "feel" of the air, space around you and around the enemy, like parking a car in a very tight space and you get to evaluate if space is worth your effort or not in a split second decision as your car drives through the parking lot.. while BVR is more like pressing the right buttons to get the damn GPS to shut up. its more technical oriented. especially in our modern time, that is even more technical with all kind of jammers, frequencies, counter moves(you might still need to do BFM obviously but they will not be so demanding of you that you will end up dead cuz you pulled only 4.5G's instead of 4.8G's.)

p.s.: Forsazh looks awesome.. really don't know what machine to enter when looking at the pictures.. but in the end of the day, i would go for mig)) love that plane so much..

yup the missile penetrated the ship through and through and exploded afterwards.. it happens, it depends how missile was constructed.. if firing on a more armored ship, thicker ship it would explode inside.. obviously they are not going to introduce US nimitz carrier to train, a small barge will do ..part of training is doing the moves, not actually sinking a ship..ship got hit, got hit good, that is all that matters... i'm more worried how bombers missed it when bombing.. Su-24 supposedly can deliver unguided iron bombs to 10-20 meters accuracy.. but i don't know how is that possible, as a dedicated strike bomber its weird... i mean is the CCRP messed up or are bombs very non-uniformly made with different characteristics that make it impossible to hit a target from low level in a straight flight..

Have you tried it in mp or would you like this option in single player?.. of course i am referring to two Su-25 flying in formation as they approach a target in a dive and fire rockets making a bigger probability of target destruction plus just plain old magnifying the destructive attack. although i can fly in formation, such a maneuver ..hmm.. i think it would be tricky indeed.. i guess 1 pilot is the lead who actually points to a target(a little bit offset to the left or right depending on his wingman position) while his wingman just holds formation until time to fire rockets.. then fire order is given and both fire away.. would be nice to see this simulated as part of official DCS:Su25 attack maneuver in sp..

Chinese AF is a must.. i mean, c'mon if we going to have Hungarian and New Zealand AF's and no Chinese than its really going to look stupid.. how hard can it be, just put a flag on the tails of a plane and a red star, cameo and this is it.. its not like we are demanding Chinese cockpit and all words translated to chinese(although it would be good for Chinese customers to do that)..but for us westerners that would like to fly a chinese Su-27 is annoying we don't still have that option to fly Chinese marked plane..

it wouldn't need DCS do reinvent itself just well in my view add a feature yet it would bring on the whole new specter of CAS fighting in urban situations.. especially for rebel situations or low-intensity warfare where small units are fighting and air power is called to get the advantage most of fighting is in cities, urban environment..as they act more defensively to whoever is defending those cities its also where most of CAS in modern day is used..plus it would be a hell of a challenge to deliver a strike at the right building )) so, my idea.. and please if you have better ideas, more innovative do add them, only condition is it wouldn't complicate ED's life by adding this feature. So my "modest" idea is using buildings as Mi-8 or Hueys.. they would be capable of embarking or disembarking troops. so you have your 12-24 rebel/ or military units (infantry obviously) and they go to a building and boom they are in.. nothing fancy in graphical terms as they would just disappear as they approach the building... and here is the trick, as opposing force of infantry with APC or whatever tries to find them they must search block by block until encountering resistance, here a simple defense bonus would be given to defending troops in buildings which would make offense with opposing infantry harder ergo they would call for CAS.. and here you come in.. with ppl on the ground guiding you, and towns, cities would have some strategic value in some quarters more than others.. so a battle in cities would develop.. and they need to cut off supply lines to those holding the cities and just much more interaction would be possible than what we have now which is more of a need to simulate total air war but as we are restricted by units, AI, it boils down to total war with limited units ends up non-realistic.. this would bring whole new concept of modern battlefield and to us pilots a huge challenge to strike the right building.. to tell you the truth i probably wouldn't be able to pull it off, but that's why i like it, i like challenges.. for ground commanders this would be even better, imagine telling your buddies in MP which building the enemy is hiding while your troops are a mere 50 m away?.. so, what do you think.. DCS: Urban factor or Fight for cities,towns, villages..

..is it overpriced? i mean for 24 apaches that cost 20 mill a pieace if not less since they are not state of the art as US apaches.. does it really come to 4.8 BILLION $?.. i mean that is 200 million $ for a chopper.. i mean its not like Iraq is buying a Raptor and even raptor is supposed to be less money than this.. true, some extra missiles, engines etc are bought but nowhere to be justified such an exorbiant price.. for this money Iraq could have purchased 160 Mi-28's or Ka-52s.. it seems overly political.. like paying tribute for "protection" .. http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/28/apache-sale-iraq/

must be a booster of some kind to stop it to ZERO, then booster falls off and missiles starts ... simple really.. and 10km is the range...so yeah very good.. problem is only acquiring targets, either by rear-radar that is obviously less capable then front radar but still enough to acquire a target at 15km range.. or use of link from other systems

i guess an alternative to "save" missile fuel etc. would be to deploy it like Mk-82 AIR verison.. a sort of parachute-gliding mechanism that would make sure missile doesn't loose much altitude while it stops to a close zero knots.. after that it fires and there we go.. so such missile would act like mines dropping from a truck you are following.. not necessarily dangerous for you but only if you keep following the aircraft.. the missile could be of small range like archer, enough to make you think about rear-aspect hunting a plane..

aircraft f15, at 9000 m altitude, me with a mig29 firing aphids))lol.. anyway, its all infra passive versus f15 who can NOT by any means detect this yet the moment i squeeze the trigger they go berserk, like i insulted their mother or something)) its frustrating to have dumb AI and then freakishly exceptional AI with superhuman abilities to detect IR missiles from 6 o'clock below them..

if u fire IR missile at enemy at his six from below so its really impossible to see it, the enemy engages defensive the moment you squeeze the trigger.. so, wtf)) any suggestions? p.s.:yes, no radar was turned, nothing, passive targeting all the way..

I mean, like HoI kinda game, 2 D strategy/tactical game, where planes would take all the computational effect of DCS like if you put 2 F-15 versus 2 Mig-29 but without the 3D.. what i mean is, then you have a game you can do a dynamic campaign, a consistent line of events that could go on for months.. you have your airbases, you have your land supply routes (roads-small,medius,big),your air routes to employ your transport planes, logistics for your ground army, ports for ships, and all the rest.. for each flight of the plane that flies an hour there is a correspondent time to repair/service it in the air base.. amount of technicians is limited so the more extensive your air operation the more likely you send planes and air-crew unserviced/fatigued into the air with less efficiency-aka organization. basically would you play a DCS:modern digital combat simulator but without the 3D part?.. i would obviously like to play such a game in 3D as well, but since that is much harder to do, i would have no issues playing a 2D strategic/tactical game like this.. maybe a bridge one day can be built where missions you order in your strategic DCS game can be "emailed" or shared to DCS of 3D that we play today.. and boom, you get your dream world together.. ))

well if it is possible even with reduced range i think its hell of a good thing to have.. imagine Su-34 or any other tactical strike aircraft, going to bomb something and then returning home or just returning home after being attacked, with rear-radar and such a missile you get to kill anybody who would pursue you.. considering energy wise the one who pursues you must be much closer to you for his missile to kill you than you with your rear-fired missile.. at speeds of mach 1 the one hunting you must be 10 km to be sure of a kill, as the target is rear-facing aspect, while defendant gets to fire a missile to his face basically making it a head-on-aspect situation.. to planes like Tu-22M i think this would be even more useful.. the missile could be on a tube designed along the plane thus giving the missile "stabile" environment to rail off at max speed thus firing towards the enemy at Max speed minust Tu-22 speed, so instead of 4.5 mach it would be 3.5 mach into the face of a pursuant .. with such a system bombers/tactical strike aircraft could get away with terrain-following strikes, after a strike is done escape probability is much more assured..

imagine a plane flying obviously straight ahead.. now just imagine a missile being installed 180% around so when fired it will fly backwards.. what happens?. or a rocket pod turned like this.. does air turbulence do something.. if a car drives 20km/h and you run in opposite direction and jump from the car, ..if your speed is 20km/h then you will land on the street as if you jumped on the street with zero speed. the thing with missiles and rockets is their speed is greater than the plane ..if plane goes 800 km/h and missile/rocket 3-5 machs.. it wouldn't matter or would it.. i guess it depends on acceleration.. if such great speed is accomplished fast there wouldn't be a consequence for the missile being dragged in opposite direction and would just continue in its own direction as stationed backwards.. so a missile in a tube along the fuselage and have it designed to get mot of its top speed at the start while in a this tube/container..so it would be akin to a hot launch from tomahawk or other cruise missiles tubes but with greater acceleration.. so in the end the missile speed would be 4 mach - speed of the plane (0.8 mach)..

i would enjoy a pc simulator with a story that is such that war doesn't happen right away, but you get to play in peace time that is about to break into war time.. so you do all the air combat patrols at the border, getting pinged by enemy radar, all the time not knowing is the enemy attacking or just provocating.. and tensions build up, you do training etc.. and then AI decides on other factors (to which you could enact as a strategic player-like putting armored division near the border, or start moving theater ballistic missiles closer to the border etc, or have those options once the enemy is starting to deliver huge quantaties of jet fuel to airports etc..). so all kind of missions would be possible in peace time even.. like recon at the border with Su24MR(oh DCS do this one next,lol)) .. or Mig-25 recon version.. to all kind of other SEAD preparation flights, with a story to match it all.. and you have something that just might attract the dumb-dumb population of arcade shooters but would be soo good it would force them to learn the art of blowing stuff up in a fully detailed war machine like DCS offers.. ahh my dream..