Chrinik

Well, the Flanker seems to be able too aswell, considering that during airshows, they make a spectacle of launching a bunch of flares...unless that´s some special pyrotechnical mounting.

There is no terrain to use around Maykop...

I wonder what would cause people to not want to show up...:noexpression:

In current setup: Mavs for the Osas, 2 GBU-12 per Bunker/House or one GBU-16, gun for the rest. Without TGP: Mavs for the Osas, 2 MK 82 per Bunker/House or one Mk-84, gun for the rest. You said something? Or did you forget the A-10 has a gun and can carry a bucketload of bombs? Let´s not forget you could still deploy GBU-12s with a JTAC. Or have you NEVER used the A-10C without the TGP for strike-missions? And before you whine...Strelas and Shilkas can be engaged with the gun just fine, for anything else, you carry enough Countermeassures. Your unwillingness to give up just a BIT of capability, when red is expected to give up capabilities left right and center for "ballance" is just very indicative of what kind of gameplay people are looking for. Your entire arguement about "taking away what people want" is exactly my argument. You just don´t see it through your rose tinted glasses. I was never against scrapping the KA-50 or Vikhrs if you feel so inclined, but you made the argument the A-10C with TGP is about the same time off then the KA-50 and SU-25T...which is wrong. I´d also love for you to show the entirety of Redfor how you take out six targets with an SU-25T in one go.

A single A-10C carries enough ordonance to do it...sorry if I don´t consider your weapon limitation to be only missiles as the de-facto measure of performance of a ground pounder. Are you refuting my scoreboard, if so, I´d like to see your reasoning as to why the A-10C is NOT the most capable groundpounder in BlueFlag, or DCS in general. Way to miss the point I suppose. And if you want, we could go through every plane, point for point, and compare. I did, but it seems like you disagree. So you are telling me that 6 Mavs to take out the long range SAMS, and GBU-12s or CBU-105 and guns for the rest are NOT enough to take out a base? Are you kidding me? You just don´t want to have your toy messed with, it seems. On what basis are you defending a TGP the A-10C arguably doesn´t really need to do it´s job, but gives it capability far exceeding anything the opposition has available? Remove the Vihkrs then, if it gives you so much headache to not be superiour in EVERY OTHER WAY! And I said, I´d be fine with KA-50 scrapped if it would be my server.

LOL. You obviously don´t know how to fly an Eagle then...with both pilots equal, the Eagle wins in Weapons, Avionics and Flight performance, number of missiles, additional sensors fuel capacity and other such trivia seem to not affect the metagame or performance at all. The SU-27 is disadvantaged against the Eagle if all factors are considered. AND THAT´S FINE! The fact that competent pilots can beat clueless Eagle drivers in a fight by using their plane right does not mean the planes are equal in power. And to add to your list, the Su-27 has DL that doesn´t work in Multiplayer... Or are you serriously suggesting the Eagle is weaker then the Flanker? I´d have to beg your pardon... Mig-29 is also currently competing with the EAGLE, as the MiG-21 was chosen to oppose the Mirage on forward bases. NOT the 29.

And that is exactly what removing X Y and Z from redfor will lead too. I´m suggesting last ditch efforts so that we actually have a chance convincing people it´s worth their time. What I´m suggesting is simply "hey, you handicapped us in four ways, and the other guys only in two ways...shouldn´t that be an equal number?" I appreciate your offer to join Red. Will put things in perspective.

Never heard of the term assymetric ballance? If one side has a leg up in one area (F-15 with Amraams and the best ground attack plane for Example) then the other side should have a leg up on a different area (better choppers/SEAD). That´s assymetric. Right now it looks like this. Best Air superiourity fighter = blue, Eagle vs 27. Best forward Interceptor = blue, Mirage vs 21. Best SEAD aircraft = None Best Ground attacker = blue, A-10C with TGP. Best Ground Attack Choppers = red, KA-50 vs Gazelle. Best Transport Choppers = red, Mi-8 vs UH-1 3:2 for blue Do you see the issue now? It should be 3:3...The issue can´t be quantified by just missile count, if you forget the fact that two A-10Cs could wipe out a FARP in seconds by launching all their Mavericks at different targets using markpoints...the 25T can´t, even with it´s 20 missiles, it can take out maybe two or three targets on a pass and has to get dangerously close for the last shot. If you break down planes into categories, and then ballance the categories so that both sides have an equal number of different advantages, it´s possible to archieve balance without removing anything. But this seems to not be the route... Maybe this could be tried for a later round, but what is testing for if not to find out how these things would impact gameplay? The worst part would be for one side to quit and blue not having any opposition, AKA round 6, would that be fun?

Seconded.

Sure...the SU-25T never really existed anyway and I don´t fly the KA-50. Again with the "Bias" bullshit. I was already wondering what the KA-50 was doing here. KA-50 first flight 1982, in service 1995. SU-25T first flight 1984. A-10C in service 2006. "The "back to the future" Tgp as you put it is no more out out of time frame than the Ka 50 or Su25t for a 1980s scenario." Lol. What now? Check your own bias. I know why you don´t want to give it up, it´s an ESSENTIAL piece of tech the A-10C needs to do most of it´s 21st century magic...giving it up would make it an A-10A with a fancier cockpit and better navigation, do you serriously think this will make the A-10C worse then anything Red has, even if the SU-25T has a build in camera? You still have FLIR available with the Maveriks, but you can´t set 6 markpoints and launch all your damn Mavs at the same time. Isn´t that what´s bugging people? That they´d actually have to put themselves in danger and actually have to put some effort in to waste an objective? If I´d make an 80ies scenario, I´d scrap the A-10C completely, aswell as anything that wasn´t around at 89...but people already suggested removing the A-10C and people whined "nobody would play blue then!" So I´m willing to compromise and get shelled regardless by people who want to use tech that legitimately didn´t exist for 15 years after the supposed setting. The A-10C with TGP is newer then the damn Amraam, so why don´t we give those back? And also, what is the introduction date for the ER and ET again? I can´t seem to find any sources, but I´m pretty sure before the wall fell. Fact is, when stuff gets scrapped for the Red side, it´s for balance (SEAD Missiles as blue has none(as if they needed any)) but when someone just asks "how bout them TGPs?", the A-10C crowd comes running that other stuff be taken out aswell to compensate. Getting to damn pissy again. I should fly Bluefor and change my Sig, maybe then people wouldn´t immediately suspect bias.

So, since I understand removing the A-10C is a bad idea, how about limiting targeting pods? Also, the fuel deal was made so that both fighters take about 5 minutes to refuel to full...a 0% Flanker would need about 7, has no ability to carry bags and cut this process short in a pinch and so on. And this argument that "you can´t fight with bags on!" yes you can...disadvantaged, but then again you did just take off within a couple seconds rather then wait for 5 minutes, so you want to have your cake and eat it, too?

It gives launch resolution for dumb bombs all the way to max altitude and is very effective in conjunction with laser-assisted CCRP bombing using the Shkval TV and laser ranger. Spot target with TV, turn on laser, dip down until the target is in the HUD and hold the trigger. Diamond appears. HUD gives you fly-to que that you simply follow until the bomb/s drop automatically. Obviously wind will deviate the bombs, but if there is no wind, you´ll see all the bombs hit relatively close and around the projected impact point, if your approach was solid.

Honestly, I would love to make a third party dev to troll the DCS community. I would announce an F-16, show screenshots and then go into hiding, simply stating "still being worked on X% complete"... Then announce big release 2 years later, throw it out on the market and it´s and F-16A with Sidewinders and dumbbombs only...it will still be bought by dedicated people, but all the crybabies would whine because they don´t want "any" F-16...they want the F-16C block 50/52 and will complain I didn´t make one XD Because that´s essentially what all this "Plz make F-16" crying is about. And I´d sit there, in a pile of money and tears. Wouldn´t stop anyone making an F-16 tho, but not my choice to make. To not be completely offtopic, I´d wish for more European or Red Aircraft aswell, there´s some interesting stuff out there, but I believe RAZBAM currently has their hands full.

Yes, let´s disregard the literally HUNDREDS of US made missiles fired and missing targets all throughout history even after Vietnam. How bout those two Phoenix missiles fired by F-14s against an Iraqi MiG-25, both missed and the 25 escaped unharmed. How bout most air-to-air kills in the Gulf War being made with Sidewinders. So, all BVR missiles suck, let´s update everything to carry Aim-120D Amraams instead.

It´s not just that...If you want a detailed rundown, hit me up a PN, otherwise I´d keep my mouth shut and not put politics and whining here. If not, no problem. Otherwise, good luck with the project. If you need help doing voicework, I´m also available for that. Already did some georgian voice acting for another campaign.

Jammed? HAHAHAHAHA. We aren´t talking about little SAM track and guidance Radars here. We are talking this: http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/P-35M-Bar-Lock-Vestnik-PVO-1.jpg The amount of energy required to jam one of these, let alone a network of them far exceeds anything a plane could emmit for prolonged periods of time. Easier to kill them with Anti-Radiation missiles, which is what the Coalition Air Force in Iraq ACTUALLY did. After a bunch of them where in HARM´s way, the Iraqis simply didn´t bother to turn them on again, rendering the entire system useless.

This is why clamoring for only wanting the most potent fighters in the sim is a bad idea. 80ies servers would make most modules really useful, but I already got into fights with eagle-drivers, that the Aim-7 is so bad, and no TWS launch, and it´s not their fault the US is superiour in everything, you subhuman garbage blah blah blah...honestly I fear the Hornet will not have Aim-7 capability for some reason and them I´m boned because I can´t fly it in 80ies scenarios or competetively. I find the 70-80ies to be the most interesting period of combat aviation and the broadest DCS currently simulates. But certain other people decide that nothing prior to the 90ies should exist so it makes them better pilots, I mean killwhores. Honestly, the Mirage 2000 is fine on an 80ies server, the Super 530 holding up relatively well with R27R or Aim-7s, and the MiG-29A being it´s period specific opponent (with a similar armament even)...so, there was a Mirage vs. MiG server around...where did it go?

Yeah, thanks for derailing the threat into a Hornet/Spamraam discussion.

Did you make sure to ask if the server allows for Gyro drift or not? It´s a server enforcable feature...you can either turn it off or on. So when you say online, the server might have simply turned it off?

After watching the Trailer, not interested. Horrible misrepresentation of the conflict. But good work anyway, I guess.

Well, if it´s based on an overheating mechanic I wasn´t aware off, that might explain the issue. Altho it´s effects are very exagerated. Overheated MGs don´t turn into BBguns.

Just saying. Maybe for Vipers, but the Hornet is used to salt-water treatment. :megalol: I stop now.

Hello, just played around with the Sabre in 1.5.4 and noticed something weird. I played the Air to Air gunnery training mission, in case it´s mission specific. I noticed that the lower guns have a vastly different ballistic property then the others. The muzzlevelocity is much lower, to the point where you can outrun your own bullets, and the spread is much higher. Now if this is somehow supposed to be this way, okay, but I was under the impression all six guns where the same XD I once noticed that some tracers had a different ballistics after switching to all guns again. Further playing around with the switch made it appear that now ALL guns share these bad ballistics. Reproduction should be easy, sit in a Sabre and fire off individual gunpairs and track the ballistic properties..

Spätschicht. ****. Mein neuer Schichtplan ist zwar super für mich, aber irgentwie passts nicht mehr mit euch XD Schade, wär gern mitgekommen, gerade weil Rakuzard auftaucht. Irgentwann klappts auch wieder.

Fixed