Sweep
-
Posts
1294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sweep
-
-
-
I think it'll be a module, don't know how they're going to work the 3 -29 variants, though. Same with -33, once it gets the cockpit/PFM, and going with past trends, it will be available separately from FC3.
-
Well now that we Nevada with Groom Lake, sadly without Papoose Lake S4 concealed runways, U2/TR-1 Dragon Lady would be a challenge. Since at altitude its stall speed and Vne is 10 knots apart.
If that is still too classiffied.
Need F-16C Block50/52, MIG-29SMT/K with EFM and systems, UH-72 Lakota, SEPECAT Jaguar, AV-8B HarrierII
Something from China, JH-7A perhaps.
With respect , F117 is still classified too sim for civilian market. Aside from F-15C landing gear, and GBU-12 PavewaysII, everything else is classified, and if available open source, likely to be incorrect.
If considering new terrain;
Point Mugu NAS (for anti-ship training)
North Pacific (Alaska, Aleutian, and Bering Strait)
Baltic Sea
Do you know that the F-117 is mostly classified, or are you assuming it is like 95% of the people here? :D
Also, does that matter**? I know this won't happen, but would I be the only one that really wouldn't care if the -117 used A-10C-style avionics? Personally, I'll take a decent representation of RL over nothing.
I love all your other suggestions, though! :thumbup:
**From a modeling standpoint, I don't know how the classification/restriction stuff affects permission to make the (virtual) aircraft.
-
1
-
-
-snip-
I'd grab more RAM at a minimum.
-
Anbody really surprised? ...what I don't understand is, why don't they use the "superior" F-35 against ISIS? It should have better loitertimes, systems, everything according to some posts.
Or isn't it still not available in larger numbers?
I especially love the "...is key to the war against ISIS" part.
So the totally outdated, obsolete, useless A-10s will once more save the day? :D :D :D
The F-35 isn't needed to go bomb undefended crap in the middle of nowhere (in US service, anyway). Not to mention all of them are still in testing/development, yeah yeah the B is IOC and whatever...still not needed. I think the loiter time is a non-factor, mostly, because of tanking...Its the transit time that usually hurts.
BTW, who says the A-10 is useless? Its simply not something one'd like to defend an SA-20 in. :)
-
The first statement simply isn't supported by facts. The A-10 flew over 8,100 sorties with total of 6 losses during Desert Storm. 3 to AAA, 3 to SAMs. (1 MANPAD, 2 Radar systems) saying the A-10 was pulled from service because of these incidents is simply ludicrous.
The second statistic was driven more by operational conciderations than aircraft capabilities. Since the majority of the Iraqi tank force were half buried in earthen berms...they were static targets easy targets for F-111s and GBU-12s. Using F-111s to kill non maneuvering static targets, released the A-10s to other mission such as CAS and hunting scuds being shuffled around in the desert with F-15s.
Finally, compare sortie rates and mission capable rates, the A-10 flew almost twice as many sorties as the Ardvarks with maintained a higher mission capable rate.
The A-10 was pulled back a bit in GW1 because they were taking a lot of hits, not to mention mission creep...
Source for that is General Horner, from 'Every Man a Tiger', Tom Clancy.
-
;2642638']
Operation Bison (now permanently set to Restricted Weps, no 120, ER/ET or R77)
Permanently? YESSSSS. :thumbup:
-
20nmi North of our base and you can attack us on the ground?
Quit whining :D
-
I think its just bad BVR, honestly...
Flank them, don't go North Korean Air Force on it.
Seriously, if you have numbers, get the heck out of his radar FoV and ET/Archer his, errm, butt.
-
(...) I am all for dynamic in the sense that one mission impacts the next to an ultimate goal (...)
Hope you don't mind me editing that.
I think the problem with that is that you're still creating missions...with some sort of dynamic campaign generator it could be pretty simple for the player to use; I definitely agree about wanting to get in the pit and get going.
Unrelated, sorta: I wonder if ED's thought about making the mission generator do something like this, maybe like what Sith mentioned in the quote above...It probably wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be a big step in the right direction! :thumbup:
-
*F-4F ICE.
:)
-
I *think* Primal was referring to the largely theoretical ideas that could be implemented with the two-day DL on the 120D.
-
That was the B-1R upgrade that never happened.
B-1s never got to be SPAMRAAM trucks. :(
-
Please do. :D
-
I'll reply in PM when I can, or if the mods could move this to the chit-chat section, that'd be nice too.
Really don't want to keep OT-ing the Euro Wishlist.
-
-
-
-
This is funny...You realize GG isn't American, right? :D
-
^^Correction: We have enough lead-in jet trainers (or whatever the term is.).
I'll fly any modern fast jet available. :D
-
I'd rather have DCS F-15C over them all. The second seat just eats away at my DPS with that added weight.
On the topic though, two seat capability is brand new to DCS and the FC planes are legacy assets. Not to mention ED is already focused on updating them to PFM standard, and possibly ASM down the line. Adding two seaters isn't really in the cards. Best hope might be third party modules.
Agreed, an ASM -15C would be awesome.
-
Nah, those (except MiG-29UB...looks cool, but no radar :( ) deserve their own module(s), IMO.
I'd love to have an F-15D, imagine what you could do in the back seat...sit and watch, take control when needed, yell at people that can't fly, etc...it'd be so much fun.
I know a lot of people that'd rather have an F-15E over any other 2 seat F-15, though...
Well, I'm fine with that too :P
-
Y'all may want to check the post dates.
-
And again, do you think the current situation, as it comes to aircraft simulation, is 100% realistic in DCS? I personally don't think so, but that doesn't stop me from greatly appreciating all the hard work ED, the 3rd parties, modders, etc. have put into the sim to make an enjoyable and mostly realistic experience. You know, just because DCS is a "study sim" doesn't mean one can't guess; if we couldn't have any guesswork done, we'd have just about nothing in the sim.
As for implying that making somewhat speculative aircraft is equivalent to Ace Combat realism?
I lol'ed. :P
On data availability: There definitely is a lot out there on those aircraft you/I mentioned, OTOH there's also a lot that isn't out there. There's some stuff that, for example, only the devs have access to.
TL;DR: I'm here to have fun in a simulated air war environment, not for perfect switchology/technical realism - although that can be nice sometimes! :thumbup:
BTW, there was an F-22 mod floating around a while ago, the mod list it was linked from was taken down, IIRC...it used a Su-27 or 33 cockpit/avionics and had the RCS of an unstealthy fighter. Such a mod with F-15 systems/cockpit would have been cool, but honestly, something like FC-style avionics + basic cockpit would be just fine. Is that optimal? No, I want what you (seem to) want - realism, but I'm willing to accept less so I can have more fun. :wallbash:
Quicky edit: By the way, sorry for this OT stuff...Maybe this should be its own topic/poll.
RF 16-2 -- feedback
in Problems and Bugs
Posted
This...campaign...is...AWESOME!