ironmarc

Great pics. And what a waste. They were just abandoned there and for a long time it seems.

That's very interesting. In the end, a tool is just as good as the person that's using it. But I think those scenarios aren't going to be happening very often in DCS. It will be a bit like the P-51 for a while. It would still be better to have the F-4, Mirage III or F-104 included in the future, to be the opponents of the MiG-21...

You have to prioritize something, you need to make a decision on which route you will take, what you believe it's more important. And what is more important will vary from one engineer's mind to the other. Forget about comparisons between Sukhoi and Boeing. That doesn't work. A better example is the process of development and production of the F-15 and the F-16. Both aircraft were developed at the same time, at first they were actually competing projects. The F-16 brings the view where energy loss, thrust, negative stability for what supposed to be improved maneuverability, were all considered more important. The F-15 project prioritized different things, different values, that were more based on the experiences in Vietnam with the F-4 and also it was more important for them to make the F-15 be an answer to what was perceived that the soviets were doing, with their super fast interceptors. Two different aircraft planned to be better at air-to-air, but differs at the routes they took, even if they tried to achieve similar things. Also they need to predict what it is going to be more important in air-to-air situations in the future when they are planning on a new aircraft project. They will take past experiences, but will try to see beyond that, and they can be wrong about their predictions even if they are the greatest minds at work.

I get what Devious means. New modules will open up many possibilities. And while it might not be a fair fight, the funny thing here is that the MiG-21BIS, which is the last upgrade of the MiG-21 I think, is still operational for many countries air forces and there's a chance they will still be used against much more modern aircraft. And If I'm not mistaken the egyptians have actually used the MiG-21 against israeli F-15's...

So, how it was?

I feel it's not really right to compare the F-35 with the F-15E when doing CAS The F/A-18 and the F-15E are both used in that role, but they are not better than the A-10, of course, but they are also not better than the AV-8B, for example. So would the F-35 behave more like the F-15E or more like the Harrier in the role of CAS? I also don't know exactly to what extent the A-10 would really change much in that scenario... Downlink and Sniper ATP usage are definetely more important to the success of that type of support to ground units than the specific aircraft that is doing this. I mean, at least, I suppose that's how it is. Because something sounds kinda wrong to me, about the whole idea of the A-10 flying around a crowded area trying to spot hostile ground vehicles. Sounds like a basic strategy mistake when deploying aircraft for a ground attack. But I'm no expert. The A-10 is better for the role and keeping a specialized, battle tested plane, while not having an actual replacement, supposedly is the best COA. However, the overly biased tone of most of those facebook page videos makes me feel a bit uneasy. Maybe it's right, maybe there is some kind of loyalty to the machine and what it represents. Anyway, from the little I have seen about this, the matter of the A-10 retirement without an actual replacement is an ongoing debate among the people with the knowledge and authority to actually make decisions about the subject.

They aren't that expensive, prices actually varies a lot. They can be priced at the millions and aas much as some cars as well. Those helicopters sold in a kit form usually cost as much as a Cadillac.

:thumbup:

The official explanation, from a USAF Chief of Staff, for the A-10 to be retired is exactly that they want to open more room in their budget to accomodate the F-35. And of course there is private company interests, they are lobbying for this to happen, but I doubt the USAF would accept that if it was a completely unreasonable deal. I think there are two points of view on this matter and none that is completely right or wrong, there are pros and cons in this decision, regarding the retirement of the A-10 and replacement with the F-35. Now, obviously the ideal situation would be to have both planes, I don't think anyone would even dispute that, but if you had to choose one option or the other, which situation would you prefer? I think they chose the F-35 and maybe they are not so wrong about that.

You guys are debating something completely meaningless. What matters in the Gripen deal is the full transfer of technology to Embraer, a more than capable plane manufacturer that is planning on venturing with military aviation. The Gripen's will be all built in brazilian soil, by Embraer engineers. Now, as for their real combat use... First of all, I don't think they will ever be used for something other than shooting a plane full of cocaine trying to enter inside the country through the colombian or venezuelan borders, to land in some illegal hidden airfield in the middle of the jungle. And that will happen only if the pilot is retarded enough to not oblige to land after a warning. And to do that job, I guess the WWII Spitfire and Messerschmidt would be actually enough LOL We actually have a training plane called Tucano that sometimes is used to patrol the borders and it's pretty much an Embraer-made P-51D Mustang with a turboprop engine. Despite having some crazy individuals running some neighboring countries governments, these countries aren't Russia, China, anything like htat. They are a big joke, they are comparable to Cuba, they don't represent a threat to anyone but to their own people. Brazil has the allie it needs: the NATO. The country has no history in wars, no reason to fight in any either, will be at most a small contributor in some war, like it did in the WWII, invading some part of Italy. The only thing the Gripen's will be for, it's to show our neighbors that we have firepower to handle them, so they ought to respect the brazilian borders (and that doesn't mean a lot of firepower). Then again, the biggest reason for this deal was probably to give firepower to Embraer, a private company, more than anything else. I don't even think Snowden's had anything to do with it. The full transfer of technology was always a high priority in the demands for the deal.

Well, so if it'll allow you guys to hop on top of your high horses again, like most people like to do, instead of being actually honest, which is a lot more difficult to find, I'll reiterate for EventHorizon: If you think this simulator is like a boring college class, this is not for you. Maybe you were not very clear about it, you meant something else, but as you put it, it's not a fit for you. And for MadCow, there is really a lot of different people in the world, thanks for that very knowledgeable reminder. I'll also give you one piece of advice, if you're emotionally immature and sensitive enough so that if someone tells you to quit doing something that you really want to do and you'll just quit, them you'll not get anywhere in this world. The complexity and difficulty supposed to have made the player MORE interested, not the opposite. I think that makes it pretty clear, want it or not, what is the profile of the player. It makes it interesting because if you have passion for aviation or if you are looking for something that has authenticity, fidelity you'll find it here. I'm a real life pilot and the only simulator out there that I have tried and that has the level of authenticity I'm looking for, is DCS World. And ralfidude, who's also a real life pilot and I know that because of his YouTube channel, also agreed with me in this thread, I come to the conclusion that when you love flying, you can easily spot when someone doesn't. And the "this is too complicated, how come people do this for fun?" it's very telling. If he was looking for a Battlefield 4 with planes only, well, it's not that. I am in no way or shape better than EventHorizon because of whatever reason. It's just a matter of being suitable for you or not. That's a huge misunderstanding that some of you are very eager to reach. You guys should really ask yourselves who's the real elitist here. And for those worried about the health of the sim genre, I say that it's a niche market, it'll always have it's place, but DCS is by far the best and most complex simulator ever created. We have dedicated companies that invest money into creating joysticks specific to sims. We are never going to overtake Battlefield 4's market, but let me tell you this, there is a growing trend of players that look for authenticity, realism and fidelity in games and I think DCS World, if it expands to many types of vehicles with high fidelity, it'll nail a lot of players and I believe that's what Tishin thinks as well, that's why he expanded his simulation world to more than just airplanes. Anyway, it's a bit naive to think that you have to convince people that already bought the game to continue playing, through an internet forum to help the company situation. This is the mindset of defending private corporation interests gone a bit too far.

You know what? Just quit. This game isn't what you're looking for. If it were, you would be encouraged by the fact that the game is as complex as it is, but instead you're wondering "how come people play this for fun?". The moment I saw the clickable panel and how detailed it is to just start the plane, as opposed to just press a button to increase throttle like some "simulators" do, it got me hooked. If I could go to a college to take classes on how to pilot the A-10, Su-25 and P-51 like I'm doing with this simulator, I would enjoy every single minute of it.

Have ED officially announced F/A-18 as the next module? I would imagine that Sukhoi Su-27 would be made available earlier. I know that the staff at ED is small and that some of them are or were engineers that worked with aircraft industry before, but I suppose that chances are that they didn't work for Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, etc... But instead for what is now the UAC. Anyway, I think the actual reason that originated all of this debate is that ED decided to become more ambitious and increase the full scope of the simulation they are developing, but I guess you all know that their studio is small, doesn't have a huge budget and with this they are trying to do more with less. That's because I think Tishin believes that if DCS World becomes a compreheensive and complete "digital combat simulator" platform, we'll see it's reputation and market grow. If it becomes so complex that it makes Arma III look like a 5th grade science project and Battlefield 4 look like a potato, not just a combat flight sim, but a compreehensive war simulator, with World War II included as well, I think it'll be the talk of many gamers, especially the ones that are a bit older. Or maybe zombies in DCS World. It worked well for Arma.

I don't think a yoke is adequate for this... You need to hold it with both hands to really have a good control of it, isn't it?