Gambit21

Okaaaay then. I see what I have on the line here. Good day to you sir.

To clarify, it's simply this. ED has said several times that the have big plans for the PTO...it's no secret...thus speculating that they have plans for their own carrier based on their established tech is not exactly going out on a limb all things considered. There's been more than one public comment regarding PTO, including in an interview a few years back. That's all. In any case I welcome whatever comes, and that includes the Mag 3 carrier. No drama, no bluff. Hope that makes sense.

I'm sure ED has their own plans.

Are you contending that Hellcats never flew from Essex class carriers? One is on the way FYI....

Exactly. From what I can see, your task is simple. No need to watch the hour long video dburne - that wasn't the point. In fact I'd avoid it. Point is, from what I can see...it's a WWII fighter mission.

Seems straightforward to me... What's the hang up?

100% with you there.

Not as much as you might think...I don't anticipate any problems based on past experience. I find that in actual practice most human pilots can be sucked into a knife-fight. I want them all.

Mk 8 is coming post early-access as stated before and posted on their website.

Yes I know, I've stated my opinion on your opinion...so I guess we're done.

The F-4E Aircrew Weapons Delivery Manual - 1F-4E-34-1-1 15 April, 1979 The Mission Employment Tactics Manual MCM 3-3 TACM 3-3 PACAFM 3-3 USAFEM 3-3 Volum3 VII July 1988

It's pages and pages of info in the surface attack section. Everything from DMAS, DTOS, Targeting pod, GBU delivery profiles, loft bombing, dive toss, etc etc etc, diagrams etc...pages and pages and pages of stuff to nerd-out on. Too much to copy and send along to anyone though. That said I don't see any ordinance specific charts per-se. Diagrams yes, plenty of those.

But not so well into earlier scenarios. So using the Marianas as say a stand-in Solomons map (which is my plan)...it's out of place. Or if we get an actual Solomons map at some point. Whereas the version they're doing can work anywhere a bit more plausibly. A 4 against an A6M is too much of a mis-match (and it's enough of one already) Really to the point though, as a long time content creator, putting so much time and blood into something, then some guy comes and posts what you "should" have done instead...pretty much annoying beyond description...trust me.

I have the F-4 Mission Employment Tactics Fighter Fundamentals (manual) from a mate who was an F-4 driver. This edition is from 1988 mind you, but I don't think much changed. Are you referencing the Bombing error analysis chart? Airspeed, Alt, Dive angle, Bank, G loading. etc. I also have the F-4E Aircrew Weapons Delivery Manual from 1979, (from the same friend) it's a huge 3-ring binder thing. I don't see a simple "bombing table" in there, but there are all sorts of charts, drawings, angles, etc etc for various weapons and delivery modes. Let me know if you're after anything specific, but I think HB will have this handled.

Bah...I've used a twist axis for 25 years and have never been at a disadvantage online or off. I've never been beaten by a guy because he had rudder pedals. It's all muscle memory, and you have just as fine control with a twist axis (so long as you have a good stick) as you do with rudder pedals.

I think they 'should' have done exactly what they did, and and I'll be happier to have it rather than your suggestion for a variety of reasons.

Relax about the Japanese planes. ED has stated on more than one occasion that their PTO plans are extensive. Those extensive plans could hardly be absent of Japanese aircraft.

Average, Good, High, Excellent, Random. Average is set by default, which on it's own I find manageable enough in my tests. If I want to dig deeper I can design logic that is based on all sorts of factors and randomizations. I'm guessing that would take a time-consuming re-work of core AI logic for these ground units to make them by default, account for so many possible factors, for instance being able to sneak up on them (not see you at certain times...able to surprise them etc) However the functionality to do this is already in the editor. With various triggers, AI On/Off functionality.

Once again, this is simply not true...it's an often repeated falsehood. Time for it to die. Aside from documents there are a number of flying examples of Zeros and Oscars around. I attended an airshow some years back with several Zeroes and Oscars in the air, and there are other things. Here's a shot of the Oscar up near me.

Not that I'm aware of, Air Force anyway. I could be wrong as well. A Marine squadron would by definition be a basically a CAS unit yes? I'm asking.

A lot of it comes down to mission design as well. I have a Normandy map set up with some smart AI/AA group logic that cause them to wake up at different times based on random logic etc. Plus setting the AI levels etc. IME mission design accounts for a lot of what many consider AI issues. I'm not saying all...but many.

I've worked with flight sim developers...I'll leave it there. The computer always knows where you're at...getting it to pretend like it doesn't in a believable 'hit sometimes, miss sometimes...how much, when, under what conditions" etc etc is not easy. Go ahead and PM then with the solution if you have it.

Says you...I know differently.

PTO is a priority for the Devs...so maybe we should just see what shakes out. AAA being too accurate is a common problem since the AI always knows where you are, and programming it to miss is not the easiest thing to do.