Chrinik

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

Say something remotely negative bout the F16 and of course you get corrected immediately XD More dangerous: Single engine, inherently more dangerous then twin engine. Less capable: Size and hardpointwise it simply carries less then other fighters, and what it carries is not unique to the F-16 and pretty much everyone can carry the same weapons, the main versions are also not carrier capable like the F-18C we´ll be getting. A good thing to get my point across would be the song "I wish I had a gun just like the A-10" by Dos Gringos, which are active duty Viper Pilots, longing for the nice features other US aircraft have, then concluding that all of their Pilots would wish to fly the Viper, but not really coming forth with arguements other then "because it´s better". XD I never stated that the stuff it does, it does bad. Simply that what it does, others can also do and most of the time, better or more of. It´s just that the F-16 can do it cheaper, but that´s not really a concern in DCS now, is it? That is probably why it´s so successful, it´s a jack of all trades, not really excelling in anything, but pricetag, but it can pretty much do anything.

When the F-16 came out, it wasn´t much to look at, either. When the MiG-29 came out, western observers where shocked it came with the capability to mount Medium Range Missiles, when the F-16 only had Sidewinders. That was actually one of the driving forces to upgrade that capability into the F-16 family very early. And to believe the MiG-29 was once a CONTESTER to the SU-27... It´s just that Soviet upgrade doctrine, especially around the 1990ies, was lacking behind western countries, upgrading most of their arsenal to multi-role, PGM capable jets irrelevant of initial design specification, while the Soviet plan was "we build it for this job, lets make it better at it´s job" when it came to upgrades. Better engines, better avionics, sure, but expanding capabilities in terms of multi-role..."dumb bombs and rockets will do" seems to have been the philosophy, atleast in terms of the cold war. When a dedicated ground attack version was made of a fighter, it recieved a different designation and was then, in fact, specilized for ground attack. XD It´s only after the tumult of the 90ies settled, that russia has been investing into their arsenals again.

That is in stark contrast to any footage from MiG-29s flying around, and the characteristic, reddish-hued smoke can clearly be seen.

Correct me if I´m wrong...but wasn´t the RIOs Radar display a CRT-screen? Wouldn´t that mean that the tube simply displays whatever signals it gets onto the screen, regardless of WHAT those signals are supposed to be? Would that, in turn, mean that the screen could also display a LANTIRN image, albeit crudely or off-color? I mean, it´s not a color image, it´s B/W, and any single channel CRT can display any B/W image?

Seconded.

Well...all the versions in DCS do. Which he was referencing. We don´t reference super mega awesome MiG-35s with new, less smokey engines. The smokey MiG-29 Engines are a commonly known part about it.

Could you not hijack a threat about russian missiles with US missiles, it will get toxic XD

The Message was "Why doesn´t Leatherneck or any developer do the plane I want, instead of the planes they ARE doing?" To which the response was "Because they already started work on X and it would be too hard to make Y now, and also classification." I found the Message to be incredibly stupid and ignorant, honestly. You can go and play FSX or whatever, it has all the planes you want, wether they are fully realistic or not, but you can pretend they are. But wondering why a developer doesn´t do "the most modern version of X plane"...well, the reasons have been stated, but why don´t YOU do it instead if it´s that easy? This isn´t even defending the developers or ED, but I honestly think that some people seem to think software developers are wizards that just hit a bunch of keys and stuff magically appears on the screen, the thought amuses me. As for the "cash paying folk"...they will pay cash for the F-14A and B regardless. Even the L39 sold copies, believe it or not. BTW, what DCS module uses the LANTIRN Pod?