Kaktus29

Riptide.. you say people would steal them.. lol.. like millions of ATMs across US that nobody touches.. why is that?.. oh cuz u go to jail right?.. some r stolen, so what.. but CCTV cameras, police does the job, put ppl for treason in jail for 100 years and then nobody steals them anymore.. also, who said this things are HUGE, they are really small boxes that emit no radiation, how will F-35 destroy them? i don't get it.. will they examine every inch of every rooftop in 10x10 km box?.. yeah, while S-400 missiles are lobbed at them.. about the S-400 missile not able to finalize its kill from this EOS traction method.. who says it has to be SARH missile, there are Active radar missiles also, as missile comes to 10 km range of plane it will pick the plane up, or have the missile IR seeker sort and pick it up even from longer range.. point is, this is hardly a plot hole if i can say this.. again, i made a very huge country as example for this system and still the bill came at moderate 1 billion.. considering 1 billion would net you 10 Pak-Fa's or 5 F22 i think this is very cheap to have installed in a secret way across a huge country like Russia.. of course best way to do this is by proxy-front electrical companies who install new version of cables to all villages, cities etc.. and then pop-those babies on top of roofs embedded with alarm and GPS transponder if CIA starts suspecting stuff and wants a closer look.. so FSB could be close to apprehend the looters right away.. all in all, i see no real big holes in this strategy, especially since its passive system it will freak out the war planners of aggressor nation, since you can't shut this down..no matter how much you try.. lob all ARHs you want.. )) About Mig-41 and potential speed of Mach 4+ .. since AIM120 and equivalents are pretty much at that speed it means big complication at hitting this thing from a distance.. and only way to ensure a kill is to get closer to it, increasing a chance 41 big radar picks you up, worse case scenario-you fire at him, he fires back from the position you fired-automatic lauch and both r engaged defensive.. who has better chance of survival.. one is going 4+ mach and flying at 85.000 feet other is going snail like 1.4+ and at 30.000 feet.. i'll pick 41 in this case.. again, you are not seeing other factors like Pak-fa that messes up the calculation.. ------------ about EOS grid, its just a thought, who knows, maybe drone EOS will be created, which will be more stealthy, smaller, more nimble with smaller range but more able to sneak up to the super-crusing 5th gen fighters..and sending data back to Mig-41s.. in this way you can reduce the need to map out the whole country (even though its worth it since its cheap considering what you get back from this investment), .. and its more mobile plus you can take out the cloud equation and enjoy clear skies in hunting red thermal image of super-cruising planes.. of course this drones would fly slower-subsonic to avoid thermal image and be stealthy.. basically many ideas to disable the idea of F-22 or any other such plane to rule the skies.. in the end it will be many systems working together to enable defense.. hardly one super plane doing it magically alone..

@riptide.. really? its too expensive.. lol.. how much does such a device cost? 10 million? nope.. 5 milion? nope.. 500K? maybe.. so if you put it in a 10 miles grid covering a huge country like Russia would be what.. how many devices.. 10.000 km X 2.000 km = 20.000.000/10 km= 2.000.000 devices which cost 500K equals what?.. 1.000.000.000.. so 1 measly billion to cover a huge ass country like Russia and gives you ability to shoot down raptors that cost 200 million a pieace not to mention other stealth planes..yeah .. i think this is a good investment.. considering this is a passive system that even in occupied territory would still work and be hidden and transmit coded info to your datalinks gives such a advantage considering the low price i say no, this is FAAAR from impractical that you say it is.. clouds on other hand are not EVERYWHERE all the time.. and since planes MOVE sooner or later they move to patches that are clear from clouds and would be picked up by EOS right away.. couple this with other techniques probably already envisioned and this is good way to make sure Stealth is far from superior horse in the battle.. having hard-core speed and altitude will prove to be the only thing that really gives you the edge..

@exorcet .. why just the "border".. how abous EOS ground station in a grid fashion like.. connecting them to a C3,C4 posts it could track supercruising stealth planes easy.. maybe enough to spamm missiles in the vicinity of stealth planes .. height is pretty much known, it will be more than 30.000 feet, if for no other reason than to preserve airframe from going supercruise in less friction environment than lower than this.. and it its higher than that than you can "track" by condensation plumes it leaves behind.. of course if its cloudy you can't see it.. but still, EOS grid makes cheap financial investment to what it offers.. a location (that is location of stealth planes minus the altitude info).. but connecting this EOS together a computer analysis can give quite good estimates as to speed, bearing, heading.. enough for fire-solution from S300,S400.. or Mig-41.. in this case.. the thing is, F-35 will not be sure he is stealthy, you can't be 100% sure nobody sees you..and you see this thing on radar going in unpredictable way moving faster than anything you can kill of with your mach 4 missile.. for god sake that means F-35 would have to fire a missile in the face at 20 miles to get a hit.. and only if it flies straight into the face of f-35.. by flanking left right, etc.. flanks are exposed and radar signature is bigger, etc .. This Mig-41 could very well play a role of a spear-head where Pak-FA and other follow into the breach.. its very good idea..

so glad the Mig-31 is getting a younger version of itself.. i see people talking if no stealth what is the point.. well, consider this, you are in F-35 and some Raptors flying here and there, ..and then on a radar you see Mig-41 flying Mach 4 at 85.000 feet.. and changing direction so intercept is impossible.. go ahead, venture in that place.. so SAMs below, Flankers on well on the flanks, and other decoys baiting you to enter.. problem is Mig-41 would pose big complication, since speed alone determines how fast one can initiate an attack and develop escape.. with such speed only a missile in the face can destroy such a plane.. now, here comes all kind of maneuvers and tactics that will be deployed and trained.such as 1 mig at the front, 1 back, 1 even more back changing direction and helping guide other fighters to kill from the flanks or even SAMs to kill.. All in all, great concept, .. it was great concept with Mig31 and with this.. even better.. Even if you see it on the radar it won't matter, since there will be SAMs ahead of you and Pak-fa lurking somewhere.. and even if no such things how the hell do you intercept it? unless it flies straight into you like a noob there is no chance of interception.. This thing will be good at satellite killings as well.. maybe this will be his first priority.. a black out of recon sats.. especially those in lower orbit for obvious reasons.. What i do like to know is how much can EOS advanced version see from the ground up.. if you put that box lets say on 10 meters height, point it to up to check the sky.. will it pick a supercruising F-22 at 40.000 feet?) (considering the distance IF F-22 would fly over such a ground based EOS it would be distance of 12 km.. surely close enough to pick the airframe of supercruising machine.. in that case a network can be easily built to make EW-eos detection of stealth planes and datalinked to Mig-41 and others to easily avoid if not destroy the F-22.. or bait it in kill zones..

SU-22 gives me more of a bomber feel to it than Mig-27 which is more of a tactical strike aircraft, .. i imagine a Su-22 more of a nimbler version of bombers, bringing heavy payloads fast and carpet bomb the target.. land, re-arm repeat.. capable of doing this cheaper, faster, for longer periods than its counterparts.. as such its a beast..

considering better situation awareness by superior and overall numerical superior and qualitative and training wise USAF in vietnam i think we can easily confirm that F-4 is by far no destructor of Migs.. if anything Mig-21 IS destructor of f-4 considering the price factor and the fact migs fought in numerically inferior battles.. i would say 37 versus 66 is a good indicator just how good mig21 is..

battlefield is becoming much faster and much information rich, ..meaning stealth, fast attack, quick re positioning of forces, supercruise, all those things will determine much more in a battle than what A-10 was intended for-to stay on a battlefield where small arms fire would tear A-10 apart but A-10 would still come back.. today wars and future wars will be less CAS intensive, since hitting supply lines will do the trick much more than CAS will.. if you can hit the supply depots, ammo supply, HQ strikes.. the rest doesn't stand a chance with an army that has all those still up and running.. so i see the point in removing this slow, visible on radar animal and saving that money for other things-F-35 for one..

weird.. the video about Yak training.. it would seem the target is a bridge with a train just passing by.. or did i see something else..

i know i'll be training with the Ocean's 13 on making sure i keep my Huey engine running as i park in front of the Bellagio .. )) lol

good news then, if time isn't right then we wait and at some point time will be right..

this developer should either come in touch with ED or ED should come in touch with him.. this is too much of a golden opportunity to do serious SAM development in DCS world..

@weta.. lol.. yeah, considering how humans turned out i would say this is a simulation or should i say Alpha version full of bugs.. poor us.. our programmer did a sloppy job.. damn those publishing companies forcing products faster than they are ready.. but on a serious note, of course, as time passes and our computer power becomes stronger, wider, more in-depth of course we can set the parameters for the "big bang" and watch the thing on our screen happen and see what kind of "life" springs out.. but since our parameters will be LESS than our universe which we do not know 100% and will never know 100% than our simulation will be a bad bad copy of the real thing.. now we all know what copy of a copy does right?.. keep copying a copy etc.. ad infinitum and you end up with white paper without the words..

i remember "dynamic campaign" of EF2000.. i really thought it was the bomb..but then saw that its sucked.. no matter what i did NATO always won.. i actually started helping the Russian side with my Eurofighter by bombing my own forces, whole airfield with planes-F-117, F-15, etc i destroyed, mission after mission, destroyed oil fields etc.. and nothing changed .. NATO still won.. so, this "dynamic campaigns" of the past have been proven to be hogwash more or less.. To me a truly dynamic campaign is the one where both sides have limited resources from the start of the war-obviously in strategic rear, which then each side deploys as they see fit.. problem is enormous, but since we can't have a save option or some way to work around this its impossible to talk about any kind of continuous campaign.. first lets resolve this issue..to finish a mission after 2 hours of engagement, then somehow transfer this to another mission with the things we did counted on and implication lasting for the duration of the war.. and then we can talk about AI how to make the experience count by changing tactics according to situation on the ground (for instance if AI sees lots of planes were demolished it doesn't move its armor anymore since its more dangerous for enemy air force to kill it as it does not posses any air cover anymore.. or do it only by night with smaller number of armor .. but this is another topic.. topic of AI development.. for Dynamic campaign i think best thing is development of "save" option .. we can simplify the process somewhat to make it happen, i am perfectly happy to not have 100% reality when it comes to save option for the sake of simplicity and workload.. my solution is divide the map in "zones" of lets say 20*20 km.. if in any such zone after the 2 hour mark armor exists it is considered your zone and also place where your tanks can be deployed in the next mission or will start from this position.. same goes for planes in airbases, if your origin is in such and such base it stays there unless you "order" it to move to another base which would mean you have to spend that 30-50 minutes to fly there and land and shut off engine while requesting this and logging this mission before hand so its permanent "home" for your plane. After end of mission such "zones" can be checked by computer and restart next mission with more or less new updated map.. when it comes to logistics and fuel, ammo, supply etc.. and how to do this from one mission to next.. i think again, simplify the system.. create certain "buildings" of high value which if hit have impact on your reinforcement and refueling of your forces.. but the trick part would be to find this buildings you need to fly recon missions and gather information.. if you fly at this and this zone after mission ends in the start of the mission you have information what targets beside land forces exist in the area (maybe supply depot, maybe ammo depot, maybe C&C center) etc.. in this way MP campaign can easily drag along and be played for weeks, well maybe not weeks but at least days while in game this would mean a full intensive war that lasts 2-5 days..

@speed.. interesting stuff.. but i think computational power will not bring intelligence.. look at dogs, or lets say ants.. we can all agree ants are much much less intelligent that humans, their brains more or less non-existent, yet their organization, architecture of society, effectiveness of utilization of manpower, all of that is very very complex... today's supercomputers we can all agree IS much more powerful than ants, yet if you put this supercomputer to "simulate" ants i bet you'll see bunch of computer ants ram each other at the "bridge" and start pilling up on each other because some algorithm didn't work out or some other bug made it bad.. computational power is not the thing.. its consciousness .. and this is whole new area that science has very little insight into.. i believe personally consciousness is sort of a reflection of nature.. if nature(organism) comes to a high degree of complexion a point comes where it becomes aware of itself while still existing in the system that brought about his existence-ergo being becomes conscious.. so, if a computer trully is made with huuge not just computational capability but cris-cross neuron connection ability that would correspond to nature's demands of what complex is than consciousness can indeed be brought into the computer as it is brought into human babies, or animals to a degree.. so, only doubt i have is we can do this artificially..since all humans are well product of nature in its core, while what we do with out intellect and build computers is by-product, what i'm trying to say is, the latter will always be less complex than the original thing cuz we unaware of this but we are connected to other things around us (nature, air, atoms, electrons, etc).. in a way computer is not.. take smell for instance.. you can smell a woman and this gives you billion information you are not even aware of .. to a computer if we use best sensors it will be mostly rudimentary information of what chemical elements are in the smell-yet to the computer this is dry info--nothing it means to it,,..so what it can say.. you see the problem? .. engineering AI to me right now looks like a pipe-dream.. remember, creating AI has been ongoing process since the 1960s.. and as technology rapidly expands we see basically no improvement.. yes, algorithms do improve and in narrow operations such as (recognize a man with a gun, shoot a man with the gun) yes/maybe/no situations algorithms will work brilliantly in the future.. but to be so complex to actually posses AI that could rival human? i don't see it.. and i'm not saying this cuz i think humans are superior in intelligence.. when i look at dolphins and how humane they are i see they are more human than humans with bigger understanding of "do not spit where you eat" than humans are(war, famine, destruction etc..) so, creating AI?.. yeah.. i'll pass. .. give me better UI so i can direct dumb AI units in CA or DCS overall and i'll create my own dynamic campaign any day.. plus it will be cheaper to do for ED than trying to create AI that makes sense..

@vincent.. creating competent AI? seriously.. i am pretty much sure this is impossible.. unless we see AI robots who can work independently in a factory and answer phones to people i think AI is a pipe dream.. bigger companies with huuuge finances have tried to do "smarter" AI and its basically same thing for what now.. 20+ years.. everybody promises better AI.. but seriously.. scientists don't even have a definition of what "intelligence" is.. let alone create an artificial one.. so as i said, just create UI so people can "man the stations" .. other than that problem of carrying one mission to another with continuity is also solvable i think by "simplifying" the "victory conditions of each "missions" .. each village would have a value point.. so if your tanks take all of the village in the end of the mission its registered as conquered territory. no need to memorize how much fuel tanks have, and shells, and all the small little things that ppl have said makes dynamic campaign impossible.. just the hardcore facts of who is winning the war/mission and who is not.. number of destroyed tanks, planes,choppers and voila.. transfer to another mission.. have 30 minutes to PLAN the mission (this is the part of the Chain command, where players could play mostly from strategic and tactical point of view-watching maps, and from their "home base" redirect the tanks, planes, choppers etc. to new locations with new missions.. and after 30 minutes pass GAME STARTS LIVE... with each side trying to figure out what the battle plan of the other is, and how to defend/attack more sensibly and efficiently.. and create orders of what to attack and relay this to pilots and so on.. i think this is all quite possible..as i said biggest problem is manpower and time, ED doesn't seem to have enough for the projects at hand let alone for adding and pilling project after project on them.. i think we will not see dynamic campaign not here not anywhere else for that matter and especially "smarter AI" for the next 10 or more years. by that time computers might change so much the whole pc game idea might change with it..who knows what the future will bring.. but to see what we want to see in our pc games (dynamic campaign, smart AI that can follow chain of command and still be sensible) i dont think so..

i guess if Dynamic campaign is soo hard to develop at least tools to have people command the war should be put in place and mission to mission information continuity (number of tanks destroyed are detracted from the pool of tanks your side has) and so on and so forth.. CA is the right direction.. we need more of that commanding wise play.. so Dynamic campaign can be wholesomely created by the players.. you have one dude playing as "general", another as Major, etc.. and enable each of them to have specific UI where it can order and exact change on the battlefield (communication control, RECON data-pictures come back to his "war room", plans created, distributed,.. i think people running the "show" would be much more amusing and interesting albeit chaotic and LOLed most probably but more much more interactive than trying to create AI that makes sense.. the biggest problem as i see is exactly the information continuity from mission to mission which is needed for any kind of dynamic campaign.. so far from what i've read this is impossible..so we basically have 2 hour mission and then its over..like 100%.. so this is it, you have to put whole war in those 2 hours.. which of course doesn't make it a good campaign obviously.. We already have a mission log, who destroyed what, need the info WHERE on the grid, and voila, we can re-create the next mission with updated information.. and go from there.. i think more than Dynamic campaign is impossible we have a problem its a bigger undertaking that ED right now can't take (with other projects like EDGE, F-18,F15,Su-27AFM etc).. so, in the future, i think yes, dynamic campaign is just a must otherwise this game remains a Study Sim and not as somebody noticed a Combat simulator..

i think we are close to some form of declaration or realization... either EDGE, Su-27,F-15AFM, F-18 projects are moving along and we see some proof of it, or they are not and slowly ED changes its business stance or adopts different approach.. nobody is chained to ED forums obviously.. would i like superb AI with dynamic campaign and fully clickable F-15,Su27,24,35, Mig-27,21,29,31? .. yes yes yes.. but considering reality i believe most probably not.. not to mention the new modern planes that according to the development of 30 year old planes speed at which they are designed and implemented in DCS i can safely say not going to happen at all.. so, its just realization of what DCS will be, ..for me its mostly a platform to experience detailed machine behavior and get the "feel" of it.. not so much to play it as a game, or simulation of aerial warfare..but just that specific plane, the weight, like some sort of semi-military FSX game.. so for me, no problems, i accepted "reality" long time ago.. don't waste time wishing ED to become something they cannot for obvious reasons ( niche market ) versus big markets that are needed to really succeed with ultra big companies that employ hundreds if not thousands of programmers .. maybe in the future, like 20 years from now, making games will be more easy since AI programmers will exist so you can specify what you want and it can create it for you, so other programmers are more oriented to heavy duty stuff of the game and not in wasting time on making a house look a little better, or river with better shading etc..

again with Grippen being good, how, will Brazil have 100% service parts and ability to produce them in Brazil? NO. so, what are we talking here.. its having a product that with slightly annoyed US becomes under sanction and useless.. Will Sweden say NO to US demands to stop providng service to GRippen? no.. end of story.. bad choice for a plane for Brazil.. When it comes to national security you put strategic imperatives into play not tactical.. even if tactically Gripen makes sense it surely doesn't strategically.. and it doesn't even tactically.. i thought we were over the quantity over quality argument.. and its not like Gripen costs 30 million USD.. its expensive, .. actually as much as Su-35 which outranks it in power, range, load, loiter, etc.. overall, facts prove this was a dumb decision.. if i were Brazil and if choosing a western product go for Rafale .. a little more expensive but more capable and with bigger range..

@scrim.. the holding down and continuing with sex is something that is not true.. the woman STATED it. it was not a rape.. but as orders from US came in Police came in and turned it into a rape.. god you are thick.. so, a potential terrorist that can blow up civilians in Sweden is less of a threat than a broken condom?.. nice.. Go sweden))

@scrim.. Brazil supposedly didn't choose US product not to hurt US finances -lol.. but to have a plane that will protect Brazil and will not be from US-with intent that it will operate IF problems with US arise.. since Sweden is not neutral that is a null point, meaning Brazil picked badly.. my "idiotic" view of what constitutes rape is not idiotic, there was never rape involved, the whole thing was about CONSENSUAL sex that assange didn't change condom and the woman supposedly wanted a new condom and after this police took over.. this is first time in history a man is being hunted on interpol for a broken condom.. seriously.. )) It portrays Sweden in very bad light indeed.. hundreds of Swedish muslims are joining the ranks of alkaida yet no interpol, no swedish police on alarm.. yet the case of the broken condom is taken with seriousness of the nuremberg trials.. all in all, Brazil picked the wrong plane..

could it be possible to make a 2 world unite.. like, from the air there would be no single infantry soldiers running around and shooting for the processor to to all the calculation but would be like a 100 meter x 100 meters "patch" on the ground that would move according to the group of those soldiers.. and if a plane throws 2,4 bombs on them in the open it would be obliterated etc.. but another world would exist where you are the single soldier working with other soldiers in more soldier, ground simulated world but with no airplanes simulation.. what i mean; would processor and graphic card be less strained if you detach those worlds and connect them only to RELAY the information when "contact"( airplane drops bombs-bomb kills ground things) .. so from air it looks like you dropped a bomb on a "patch" of troops, no graphics more or less.. yet this info directly translates to "ground" simulation and shows the bomb exploding with big graphics and throwing soldiers all over the place.. in this sense you separate the need for "sharing" the graphic overload and processor power with both worlds..and keeping them separate .. playing as a soldier i really don't care if i can see A-10 with "optical device" or hear super sound of it coming at me, ..something very rudimentary would be okei.. same goes if you are in a plane.. why bother joining it all on one sphere if and this is a big IF separating them would bring better efficiency, speed, and complexity.. in this case you can have infantry going into building and fighting room-to-room yet from air this would not bi visible since the map you are flying over is your typical DCS map, yet if you drop a bomb on that very building it will translate this info to the (DCS infantry world that would i guess be another game altogether but copied over the map so the geographic points correlate) other world and do damage to the troop accordingly (here we can simplify it as in, if troop is in building it dies, if outside building but in cover injured or whatever..

@scrim.. i don't think you understand what i was saying.. at the slightest problem Brazil will have with US, US will be able to tell Sweden or Finland or Austria of whatever western country to stop giving support to Grippen parts and voila .. BRazil can kiss its GRipen force goodbye.. US picked a phone and closed whole European air space from Russia to Portugal and threatened the live of a president of a sovereign country Bolivia last year.. To imagine Sweden will resist such pressures ? lol.. So, picking Grippen is just stupid.. Brazil should have gone with F-18 for that matter.. if its western than you have already made your choice of who u hope will be your ally.. so somehow saying Grippen gives you more maneuvering space in terms of safety for delivery of essential parts and technical service compared to F-18 is just stupid.. Sweden hunts Assange even tough no rape, even though the woman supposed to be raped said she has no problem and didn't file the report to the police but police did it anyway-we can only guess by whose orders.. Fact is, Sweden is more or less NATO country.. and NATO is US organization where US exerts most political, diplomatic and military power.. so, whats the point in picking Gripen instead of F-18? .. cheaper? if you want cheap just forget the planes, call US to guard you as Hungary is doing to Slovenia air space and be done with it.. why pretend to have an air force when it can't be used unless Washington gives you "green light" ..

i think the idea to take pictures with drones and map the world is very very limited.. by the time they finish with this the first pictures they took of a city will be changed so much that fans will scream-why is this building NOT in the game.. also agree with some commentators that next generation in gaming will only happen when bio-technologies make it possible to connect to our perception and brain area thus creating the world and interpreting it from internet-pictures, videos etc.. and share your experiences with other people.. it will be the ultimate experience.. hardware has seen its limits, we need much more.. and oculus rift is only a very small modest beginning to what is coming..

i think valid concerns exist to how much control Brazil will have in terms of spare parts etc. IF problem with US arises.. Grippen, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-18 all of it is more or less US approved.. so if you are buying any of this fighters i think you can kiss your sovereignty goodbye.. again, the likelihood Brazil might come under-pressure from US for whatever reason is much bigger than Russia..so picking a western plane from a western government that is very agreeable with US is surely a miss in my book.. Who knows what the brazilians were thinking.. Sweden is still gunning for Assange for a broken condom.. not even rape, and sweden is suppposed to be "neutral".. when it comes to military shipments.. yeah, Brazil bad decision..

@riptide.. yes, but sending bombers means more cost for developing bombers, using escort, or having stealth bombers-even more money, etc.. if one runs a huge serial run of making cruise missiles the price drops with each missile produced while its hard to really justify this economy of scale with bombers which usually not more than 20-60 are needed for major war.. true the intermediary treats is about air launched weapons and is forbidding land-launch..but still range plays a role.. if land launched its much more stealthy than by air that powerful radar EW can see the plane take off ..or satellite pictures can notice the bombers refueling and arming at air base etc.. giving a warning .. but land launched cruise missiles hiding in the woods and in other places are much harder to notice.. and if range is big enough have the potency to deliver a decapitating first strike.. i do find it interesting US accept international treaties on ad hoc basis) lol.. ABM treaty was shredded by Bush on mere whim.. US said yes, there was a treaty and now there is none.. but Russia is supposed to remain in the dark ages so US ABM shield will not be wasted for nothing if nuke exchange starts..