CheckGear

It was very enjoyable. It told a very good story and the movies were good and the cast was great. I have to say, it was extremely difficult at times, even at the lower difficulty levels.

This is beautiful - take the player through the (flying) career of a modern-day F/A-18 flyer! It would be awesome if there were a way to "lock" the TOPGUN campaign until after one "real" campaign is complete, since TOPGUN is something done typically between an NA's first and second deployments. FYI - TOPGUN is no longer "Navy Fighter Weapons School. It's now the Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (NSFTI) program. :thumbup:

As a sim, Top Gun: Fire at Will! was an abomination, but it was still incredibly entertaining. You played it simply to advance the story, which was essentially a reboot of the franchise. Nice to see James Tolkan "reprise" his role as a different character!

Of course I do. I've shared it many times before. I like it. I love it. I want some more of it!

The more I listen to Meteor's music, the more it reminds me of the soundtrack to Spectrum Holoybyte's Top Gun: Fire at Will!, specifically, the following tracks:

Anybody else felt like they were listening to the soundtrack of an '80s video game?

Two things stand out from this overview: TCS: I thought the screenshots were of a TCS in use in the real world. It looks amazing and holds even more significance for me, given things I learned while reading a book I'm using for research for an article. Apparently, the TCS wasn't available on all F-14s in every squadron, even well after its introduction into the fleet. In one squadron during a mid-1980s deployment, only three of twelve Tomcats had it. It goes to show you that the F-14 never really became "ultimate" until almost two decades after its introduction. Jester AI: I think this will actually become the "killer app" of the module. We've had AI flight crew in the past, but never to the level of intelligence as Jester appears to be at. Ordering "it" to look in a particular direction, for instance - that's not just a sign of how much flight sims have become sophisticated, but also how advanced AI has become in general. I was playing Fleet Defender a while back and, just seeing screenshots and reading previews for DCS: F-14 makes Fleet Defender look like a cheap survey sim. We've come a very long way in 23 years, baby!

Which makes it's opposition to the P-8 being used as a tanker all the more baffling. It would've freed up the USAF tanker force to dedicate itself to its own aircraft.

Here's a very innovative, if highly imperfect, solution for providing the carrier air wing a (semi-)organic tanking solution in the post-S-3B era: The reality is always more complicated, but the Air Force's reaction was curious, given that there'll always be a demand for tankers. It's not as if the Air Force doesn't have enough aircraft to refuel.

Good to talk to you again, Blacklion! That's quite a downgrade. Of course, that was mitigated by the greater availability of tankers, since S-3Bs were used primarily for tanking by this point. Does that also mean the post-1994 air wings carried ten Intruders as opposed to the fourteen of yesteryear, given the four extra Intruders were KA-6Ds?

That definitely sounds the soundtrack of a late-1980s to mid-1990s combat flight sim soundtrack! I can't wait to see the final product!

Question - the KA-6D was retired in 1994, but the A-6E continued to fly until 1997. The A-6E continued to be used a tanker role. My question is, was the A-6E essentially outfitted with buddy stores? And did this result in a decrease in the amount of fuel available for tanking?

I think they'll implement all of this eventually, just not everything at once. First, they'd have to establish some system of flight deck control (like ground control), air traffic control, then flight deck activity, etc. Knowing ED, they're going to make the carrier ops the most realistic yet! It'd be refreshing to at least have all three recovery types simulated - Jane's F/A-18 Simulator simulated only Case III.

Strait of Hormuz was a dream map for me. It's finally come true.

DCS isn't an equilibrium - it's the best of everything! Since the release of LOMAC back in 2003, there hasn't been a challenger to ED. Currently, that amounts to a monopoly in the combat flight sim genre and that's perfectly fine by me! :thumbup:

More than likely. What I like most about DCS is that the development never stops. Eventually, we will get the perfect product, it's just a matter of time.

Told ya. :thumbup:

Just imagine a terrorist attack at one of those Abu Dhabi or Dubai mega-malls or even at the Burj Khalifa. Then you've got a real epic story! :thumbup: This is more for your information, but here's an interesting article from last year talking about how the British are bolstering their presence in the Gulf region after decades of decline. Definitely gives you a sense a storm is gathering. http://warisboring.com/is-britain-staging-a-comeback-in-the-persian-gulf/ And here's another piece talking about the increasing significance of the UAE, particularly with regards to the U.S.: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/is-the-united-arab-emirates-americas-best-friend-in-middle-east-281bd5c38ed5

Both Abu Musa and Kish would make great targets, given how fortified they've become over the years. Manama's like the Subic Bay of Southwest Asia, except for the unpermissive atmosphere.

Playground's outside, kid. Use your imagination there.:lol:

It's very true that the Shia-Sunni divide isn't the only thing fueling Middle East hostilities. That being said, most estimates round off the percentage of Shia in the UAE as 15%. Just as laying all the problems in the region at the feet of the Shia-Sunni divide is overly simplistic, saying the percentage of Shia in the UAE is "enough to start an uprising" is an even greater oversimplification. Of this 15%, only a certain percentage is going to be able to put up a resistance and an even smaller percentage is going to be willing to do it. That makes the number of Shia capable of causing mayhem very small. I, personally, didn't make too big a deal out of this because you're presenting an alternate reality and I thought you could use a break from all the fact-checking. :) But even for an alternate reality, the idea of an uprising in the UAE and defections in the UAE Armed Forces to Iran is incredibly far-fetched, especially the relatively well-assimilated nature of Shia Muslims in the country. It's far more likely to see this happen in Bahrain or even Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, neither country appears in the map. If you insist on the UAE instability storyline, I'd suggest you remove the coup and replace it with a wave of extremism and terrorism that sweeps through the UAE due to intrusions by groups like Hezbollah, or at least have the coup precipitated by the carnage wrought by Shia extremism. That'd work much better.

Historically, the Gulf of Oman/North Arabian Sea (a.k.a. "Gonzo Station") was exactly where the carriers tended to operate. It wasn't until the Gulf War and after that carrier groups operating within the Persian Gulf being a "thing." In all likelihood, a clash in the Strait of Hormuz would have, for their own safety, carriers operating at Gonzo Station. Islands like Abu Musa and Kish have military airfields that should be able to accomodate fighters (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, like you pointed out, planes can start in the air to simulate flying in from other bases. Not to mention Bandar Abbas is the most consequential Iranian military facility along the Persian Gulf. Sassan platform was located barely outside the map posted by Wags. Certainly not something you can make a big deal about. Sirri platform, the sinking of Joshan and Sahand and the attack on Sabalan all occurred well within the confines of the map. If a war between Iran and the U.S. or the Gulf countries occurs, it'll most likely happen here due to the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. And the options are rather limited for the Caucasus as well. Not to mention it's gotten pretty boring. But this is precisely why we're getting different theaters and will continue to do so. SoH obviously isn't meant to be the map to end all maps.

Wrong war. A war in the Strait of Hormuz would be quite different from Iraq or Syria.

Theoretically true. But load that Hornet down with ordnance and an array of threats to potentially deal with, it's not going to be able to take joyride around the Strait. I've said this time and again; the DCS fan base has a very bizarre concept of what "plausible" and "real-life" constitutes. In fact, they seem to confuse such terms with what they personally find to be the ultimate thrill. Look up Operation Praying Mantis. That whole operation took place in the Strait of Hormuz. If that's not plausible or real-life, then I don't know what is. That's a good point. Combat missions are never the complete breeze people make it out to be.

:megalol: Well, if there's anything American air power's good for, it's a no-fly zone! :lol: In all seriousness, one way to mitigate this issue is to do what they do in real life - implement strict regulations and rules of engagement. For example, the F-14 rarely (as in almost never) carried more than 2 AIM-54s, due to weight issues. We can also require positive ID visually or via sensors before engagement and, in the absence of an immediate threat to oneself, have to request permission to engage. I think DCS permits such command-and-control measure to take place?