Frostie

Awesome video and live commentary, got to say the commentary was amazing and made a few of us look ten times better than what was actually happening in the pit. :D

If you want to simulate a gaming environment then by all means it's a great idea but I don't think BS are trying to do that. If you understand how real world airforces operate you'd know that it is not done with solo aircraft operating on their own while the rest of the airforce works together with different systems, C3, link-16, datalink, comms etc. Having a high power airforce getting foreign aircraft up and running on the same day in the middle of a war without any training and zero integration sounds pretty daft to me.

I don't want to be too harsh on you coming up with new ideas but this one is daft as :animals_bunny: . Never used that smiley before. Our countries best pilots who have just managed to push the enemy back to capture this airbase, lets get them to land their beloved jets they've trained in for years at said airbase, then jump into these foreign wangdangles and give them a shot for a change, what could possibly go wrong, surely that would make us even more invincible. I think this would be taking things in the wrong direction. ;)

Are you sure about that and you're not mistaking AI aircraft locking you up on the ground, which incidently can be any AI aircraft? I've never heard of FC3 aircraft locking up aircraft on the ground with radar sounds like you've got some crossed wires there. I've heard of Mirages locking up airbourne aircraft while they themselves were on the ground.

What irks me is that these days so many people have an excuse or complaint when they get shotdown, the respect is disappearing and being replaced with something I can't describe here.

I think discussing real life refuelling procedures on whether tanks are empty or not is irrelevant, the refuel process was put in I believe to reduce the level of aircraft spam from point A to B, note the idea had nothing to do with defending just attacking airbases. The F-15C to my knowledge has a greater range and also carries a greater fuel load than the Flanker.

They are actually called 'standard flight models' and 'standard system modeling', not simplified. Has a totally different meaning.;) http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

Lets go back to point of the discussion you wanted and remove the nonsense I brought into it so as we don't get interrupted by any potentially willing oiks. It doesn't turn like a blimp that is trying to make it sound worse than what it actually is, it is still an agile fighter. Just one tank is equal to 20% fuel in the Flanker. Do you think it is fair that an F-15 with 3 tanks can start immediately with a Flankers equivalent of 60% fuel. Of course it isn't but that is the pros and cons. What do you suggest would be an improvement?

Climb down a bit. I didn't make those points out of a reflection to reality just out of a game balancing reference which is what some seem to want. I'm not asking for those changes just highlighting the level of depth you can make for the sake of balance. I should of had another coffee and worded it clearer. That was exactly the point I was trying to make regarding the fuel, there is no easy option.

So your saying your F-15 guys can't compete with attacking strikers when they have bags on, oh dear that is funny, I dunno, maybe they could get good or something. Of course an F-15 can fight with bags on. What do you suggest, rather having both aircraft capable of taking off without refuelling just have the F-15 only capable. There are pros and cons to every aircraft, if you want balance in the game then how about R-27R gets the same range as an AIM-7, AIM-9 gets as cool as R-73 or AIM-9 gets a big marshmallow smoke trail like every Russian missile does. How about Russian datalink, where is it? F-15 didn't get it until 2005 but Flankers had it in the chosen era, it works in game but still we don't get it, it is probably best they don't include it though especially considering the trouble a lot of F-15s are apparently having with just Strikers. All of this is pointless game balancing. The list is endless and pointless lets just enjoy what BS create or bring a sensible alternative to what is already a sensible set up. You've either never been on Red or never been on when it mattered. :)

Why stop there you can draw up so many anomalies for both sides. Regarding the MiG-29 the toughness of the MiG comes mostly from side-on hits just like the Mirage but where the Mirage excels over the MiG is with head on hits, the Mirage just laughs at missiles from this aspect.

Don't get me wrong there is no denying it is easier to find choppers with EOS but you've got to know where they are first. Not as easy as EOS but the AIM-9 seeker is no slouch at finding them, once they drop off the radar providing you've kept a visual on last known location you can pretty much guarantee that's where they are, understanding the acquisition range is going to help scan an area. To add to your problems you're trying to find a Kamov legend. As for Ka50 having intel capability I think maybe this is unfair.

If you saw a chopper inbound then you need to inform the powers that be get stingers placed and a focus on the area, heck you have NCTR so should be able to spot the major threat and notify the danger. Get the Ka50 or any chopper and learn how they operate then you'll understand what you need to do to make it tough for him rather than say oh well and press on forward looking for/attracting the fighters to play with. He has to get from A to B very slowly, he either takes 2 hours to get to the target or he is visible at 10 nautical at worst and 40+ at best, i'm sorry but you seem to be lacking in patience to care about this threat. And if he is attacking your base then understanding the crafts engagement range is going to help you no end. EOS works on stationary choppers at about 5-7km.

If you don't know how to find a chopper in an F-15 i'm glad you haven't worked it out yet. The problem is down to the huge difference in pilot ability and co-ordination on each side. Granted there are some good A-10 pilots on Blue but I've seen so many poor A-10 pilots, contrast with Red which has plenty of quality striker pilots. If you're getting done over by a Ka50 and Mi8 then your CAP is piss poor, you know when it says an airbase is under attack that means your airbase is under attack. When outnumbering red side and a Gazelle has got a bomber inbound the desire to defend that bomber is just non existent, probably too into airquake. A-10 pilots are given windows to make attacks they then perform 4 or 5 flyovers before even making a kill. But keep blaming the platforms because how can it possibly be anything else.

I think the main difference between ARH and SARH against chaff is the generation gap, compared to a typical SARH missile an ARH such as AIM-120C is more in tune with the modern battlefield being as it is more recent tech. The fact that the AIM-120C5 has advanced algorithms to deal with chaff rejection compared to an AIM-120B should point to a reason why more modern missiles are less susceptible to chaff. It's all part of the ongoing battle of CM and CCM.

Of course SFM is trying to reflect the relevant aircraft performance envelope that is what simulation is all about. It is called standard flight model not simplified, simplified implies purposely downgraded which it isn't, it is an FM originally intended to simulate the perfomance characteristics of the real world counterpart much like il-2, whos FM I imagine doesn't get anywhere near as much discredit. This is how VEAO interpret the flight models considering they used SFM on their Hawk. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2415708&postcount=4 Probably not fair for the SFM pilot because the PFM will be able to go to places the SFM won't. Not to mention the more options in radar and ECM features available to a fully modeled system. I really don't get the argument of more fidelity equals harder to fight in, the only difference in operation would be more options. It's as though some think you have to wind cranks and pedal whilst tapping your head to fight in a 4th gen fighter.

I don't know why you choose to bring BF4 into this, simulated aircraft flight parameters are based on real life EM diagrams and arcade games are not.

If that were fair to say then landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov or refuelling from an il-78 would surely be a first time, everytime success for a seasoned gamer. Flight dynamics being improved doesn't equate to difficulty being increased.

Yes because Su33 is so much easier to dogfight in than anything else, this is why it rules the skies in servers and dogfight comps. :confused: I think too much thought goes into the negative side of a standard flight models when a large portion of the flight model is pretty good. Yes its not perfect but certainly not to be drawn in comparison with spacecraft and arcade.

I'm jealous of all the fun you guys are having, would love to find the time and get in to help my Red comrades out but it seems they have everything under control.

Yes relock works in DCS too. The other, I believe this is how SARH works, seeker doesn't become semi-active until terminal phase, makes sense and I think how ED try to model it, hence HOJ doesn't give a warning until seeker range.

The answer to the ultimate question. For anyone who has taken time to read the opening thread will know that the product is not released and still being worked on.

The idea is for communication between pilots at a given airfield no ATC needed to organise anything just a clear picture on what is happenening plus a bit of atmosphere thrown in.

Yes sure but the basis of your request was to make you more effective in mp, how can I make this better but not unrealistic, by calling a kitten a tiger that's how. :)

There is no argument, like the guy told you, forget the secondaries such as which module, what weapons etc. and focus on the different approach to requests made by the two parties, I see why he gave up trying to explain it to you. It is not about comparing module realism it is about peoples attitudes.