Jump to content

Scrim

Members
  • Posts

    891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Scrim

  1. So now when it's almost done, it's once again suspended indefinitely? I don't understand the logic behind this. I doubt that people would chose EDGE over the -21 if you asked them what they wanted released first.
  2. If it takes a direct hit from a 23mm shell, then yes, it really should go down. The A-10 that was hit by the same sort of a 23mm shell over Baghdad just barely made it back. Somehow I don't think a P-51 can take the same amount of damage and keep flying.
  3. It's not about visual damage at all; When I've heard several long .50 cal bursts hit the WW2 Mustang I'm flying, I shouldn't be able to fly it at all, not even after the first burst, let alone after the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and ninth at least. Every single one of those bursts were the kind that when you see them as gun camera footage, always result in a burning target falling to pieces after half the burst. The inability to see where other planes were due to a lack of smart scaling was something that made the MP dogfights boring, but seriously incredible amounts of heavy calibre bullets that planes could absorb with little to no damage was the ultimate deal breaker. Even when I've flown SP missions in the -51 with ZSU-23s have I been perfectly capable of remaining in flight and even executing perfectly normal landings. ZSU-23s don't fire shells with proximity fuzes, so I survived direct 23mm hits. Just one would've blown a modern fighter right out of the sky. A WW2 one surviving several of those just illustrates how badly made the damage modelling of the P-51 is at current.
  4. I'm not a good virtual prop fighter pilot, so it's not about what I've experienced from the shooting end, but at the "being shot at" end. Last time I flew it (has been no mention of changes to the damage system in the update we've had since) I took at least 6 bursts that should've blown me clear out of the sky by themselves, but yet I could keep flying with zero issues, apart from some broken gauges and jammed weapons in one wing. Not even when the tip of one wing had been replaced by a burning inferno did I have many issues RTB'ing, where I crashed not because of my damage, but because of the shoddy landing skills I had at the time. The one time I did land hits on someone, the person in question was recording, and from that as well as what I saw when it happened, it was without a doubt a long killer burst from close range, hitting rudder and stabilizer flaps (the horizontal ones on the tail, not sure of the name), and yet his plane didn't even from the loss of any of those, or even less response from them.
  5. I agree that the P-51 is marvellous, but to be quite frank, I don't think anyone can deny that the damage model is extremely unrealistic. Do a MP dogfight and see how incredibly much damage it can absorb. The damage you need to take before you can't fly it normally alone would've been sufficient to down 1-2 P-51s IRL.
  6. Threatening legal action over a dollar seems, eh, special? What I find myself wondering is why this backer option was ever allowed? If ED finds it financially unviable, then certainly that must've been the case for RRG as well. I don't believe ED wasn't told of that detail before consenting to the project, and thus I question their reasoning behind actually accepting a DCS project in which a $1US contribution would translate into receiving a $50US module.
  7. Yeah, it'd be a real shame if they didn't take plenty of time. The KA-50 would perhaps to this day be suffering from the Doppler and HUD not being repaired with the rest of the helo. Oh wait...
  8. Would certainly make sense. I can't imagine that you'd fare too well in an ejection if you're still grasping your stick and throttle, clicking buttons, etc. On the other hand though, when I read Robin Old's biography, he did mention how one of his friends was killed in S Vietnam flying an F-4 IIRC, where the GIB ejected before him and he remained.
  9. You wrote comedic posts in this thread? Why I've never... Nah, that first plane the Wright brothers built, it's that for sure. Cobra did say some people would hate their new project :P
  10. At the expense of all that has come with it just so far? Yes, I'd definitely rather not have had the project at all to begin with. ED has suffered a huge PR loss from it, both in terms of regular customers losing all faith in them, and less regular customers just taking one look at what's happened and decided that there's no point getting very involved with DCS at all. TL;DR. Yes, I'd very much like DCS:WW2 to happen. No, not if this is what comes with it.
  11. I take it a refund is out of the picture? I'm incredibly disappointed and will never again pledge money for a DCS project. Even without all the drama of new management, I don't think I would've backed it with just these new "awards". I don't think I'll even keep "support buying" modules I'm not interested in any longer after this. The questions surrounding the money (not asking where it went/is), the new management, the drastically reduced awards, etc. I could've taken alone, but all of these things combined is just going, well, a lot further than too far by this stage. I know it's not easy for ED, any of this whole spectacle, but I can't help feeling that no one forced them to go along with the WW2 project to begin with, and in hindsight I wish they hadn't. It's not about the money (I've spent large sums on hardware for DCS, so that's not the issue), it's about the trust. The constant delays, bugs, etc. is a price I was willing to pay. When the WW2 project started and ED chose to put their name on it by agreeing to it, I felt that the time tables were so optimistic there had to be a very good reason behind it. Now we're sitting here months after Beta testing should've started IIRC, and the only thing we've gotten is seeing the entire project apparently disintegrating a bit by the month.
  12. I don't mind the fun aspect, but I'd find it really inconsistent for the forum to hand out permanent infractions left, right and center for merely posting in a thread about Ukraine a month or two ago, and then completely ignore a thread that definitely doesn't comply with the no politics rule.
  13. I'm not discussing his politics, I'm pointing out the very obvious fact that he is a politician performing his very political job in that film. How this thread is in line with the zero politics policy is something that I doubt is possible to explain.
  14. Wanna take a wild guess as to how much Putin's worth himself? I have a really hard time seeing just how a thread about a solely political figure, pulling a very political stunt is not a political thread. Is it suddenly OK to do politics here, as long as you claim it's for amusement?
  15. Takistan, Kebabistan and Falafelistan. No others.
  16. Fixed that for you. Well, not sure if they were E versions, but what I've read is that they were F5s.
  17. New pedals? Why? It's not like they could develop some pedals that are what the Warthog HOTAS is to joysticks. I'd much rather they look at new sticks, so there'll actually be a point in having a detachable joystick. Right now all you get for it is a stick that twists a degree when you click the mastermode button.
  18. Winz: I can assure you that I base it on more than DCS. In fact, I don't base any of it of DCS for obvious reasons. I will admit that upon further reading, it appears I've misinterpreted deception jamming as being a sort of aspect of noise jamming. Many thanks for pointing that out! Any tips about info on deception jamming? Is it providing false guidance like BLUE DOG, or making it look like the plane is somewhere else? Mav: I don't know if the Shilka targeting radar can burn through jamming when you're inside the relatively short max range, but if it can't, the noise jamming will mean it doesn't know your range, which would obviously cause quite some problems for the Shilka crew. In good visibility, they'd have optical sights for backup. Again though, no idea how well portrayed this is in DCS.
  19. Have I gone and bought papers about how modern ECM pods work, and what they do? No, because that is sheer speculation. Have I read what little is available to the public? Yes. That is what I base my statements on. It is very likely that modern pods can do a lot more than what I or most people know, but using that as a justification to speculate and make things up is just silly. It is not my intention to come across as angry at everyone who doesn't agree and all knowing. What I take exception to is when someone who is entrusted with keeping the tone on the forums civil turn up and says "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, and I refuse to prove that I know anything because you've questioned my knowledge".
  20. Paying for information about this gets you nowhere, certainly nowhere where you are privy to information lacked by others. Going to college is a bad comparison; The teachers are allowed to teach you how the subject works, whereas anyone who legitimately knows what they're talking about in regards to modern ECM pods would get locked up for decades if they revealed how it works to someone without the clearence in exchange for money. The very best you can get in exchange for money within the limits of the law is educated guesses from retirees who worked with ECM during the Vietnam war.
  21. No. That's just another reason why I suspect you don't know what you're on about (apart from the complete lack of actual sources to back any of your claims). The knowledge regarding all of these things can be divided into 2 sections: That which is secret to the general public, and that which isn't. The latter is always available for free. There simply is no classified level that is available for anyone who'll pay a fee. If you've payed anyone money to find out things that no one would be able to know otherwise, you've either A, bribed someone with the right clearance, or B, signed up on some nonsense website that charges a fee for access to freely available information. I've had enough of your way of arguing. I have provided sources to back up my claims, whereas you've just written "no, you're wrong because you disagree with me, and I know things that no one else knows", in addition to misrepresenting what I've written. It's immature and nothing else.
  22. Yeah, go ahead and point out where I wrote that it was easy to feed SAMs false guidance? If anything, I wrote the very opposite. I don't see any reason to believe that your guesses are less "wild", especially since you provide no source other than "I know more than you". Not one thing that I've written have you even tried to disprove to any further extent than writing "you're wrong".
  23. Including things that they are not actually capable of? Don't think so. So for example, they can't provide false guidance to SAMs. Well, they might be able to, but that's way beyond what is declassified about them.
  24. http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3956529/Re:_9K33M2_OSA-AK_(SA-8B_Gecko#Post3956529 Way I see it, there's probably no one better qualified to talk about these things in the sim community who isn't doing those things for a living than Hpasp. Obviously things like the AN/ALQ-184 pod isn't crap, but I sincerely doubt that it is capable of interrupting 27 SA-2s and redirecting them all at the same time.
  25. Riiight. One of the ECM machines carried by the SR-71 would break in to the "link" between a fired SA-2 and its targeting radar, and delay all transmissions, thereby rendering it unable to hit the plane even if it for some reason would have no other ECM turned on. Going to tell me the AN/ALQ-184 can do that?
×
×
  • Create New...