RedTiger

:mad: :furious: :protest: :wallbash: :ranting: :puke:

Yeah, very well put! It's like you're taking the initiative to uphold your honor on the secret. Why? Because YOU want to because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because mommy and daddy told you not to. :D

Hmm...well, the context I've heard that in doesn't really support the notion that they are unsure. Two examples I can think of off-hand; I was watching a show about stealth technology and the SR-71 was briefly discussed. A man who worked at Lockheed's skunk works mentioned that they experimented with low-observability technology. Besides shape, he said that there were other methods which he "wasn't going to talk about" because they were still classified. Another dealt with Pablo Escobar. One of the US operatives (who had his identity masked, btw) said that they had technology onboard their civilian aircraft that could very accurately track location based on phone calls via methods he "wasn't going to go into". Neither of them sounded unsure, especially the guy tracking Escobar. I would think that you wouldn't just be unsure, you'd also be afraid of being thrown in prison. IIRC, I think I've even read posts here from Rhen, who is an F-15 pilot, where he chooses the same type of phrase when something is classified. Sorry for the derail. That was a cool bit of info there in the post, thanks for sharing! I've been meaning to ask this here before but never actually did. Maybe a moderator will move this to a different thread.

Just an observation; have you ever noticed that, at least in the US military, they always say "I won't discuss" or "I'm not going to discuss" rather than "I can't"? Is this a conscience thing they are trained to do? It may seem like semantics, but there is a big difference. "I won't" communicates an active stance of not giving away any info even if you actually could. "I can't" almost infers that the speaker wouldn't mind doing so, but his superiors won't let him. Its easy to see why they would prefer the former. Am I right that about the intentional word choice or is it just conincidence?

I take my previous choice back. Since I wouldn't be doing in any fighting in mine but I WOULD hot dog and show off, I'll take a modernized YF-16 exact-replica please: Mean looking little SOB.

I tried this at first, but I found that I didn't quite know the jet as well as those who designed it. Despite DCS: BS taking things to a new level of realism, even original Falcon 4.0/Allied Force is still complex. Complexity created a tendency to miss things because I didn't know I needed them. Once I set up my HOTAS the way the real thing was, a lot of stuff clicked. Originally I was scratching my head trying to figure out how the hell you were supposed to switch MFD pages without having to reach for the OSBs. I didn't even have a the data management switch mapped! :doh: I found that a lot of the TMS functions were exactly the things I needed most, switching radar modes Dogfight mode, for example. :) I can't speak for any other aircraft, but if you set your HOTAS up for realism in the F-16, you have efficiency and ergonomics already covered. ;)

My standard response to posts like the OP from new forum members will now be: "Alright, who put you up to this? How well they paying you? Are they hiring?"

Air traffic controllers would probably HATE you. ;)

You get the home version of "Fighter Pilot's Playground". Have fun creating your very own Red Flag. :pilotfly:

MiG-29. If I were rich, owning and operating one would actually be feasible. I would need some wing tanks and the centerline to fly it long distances, but the looks while I taxi out at San Antonio Int'l would be worth it. :) F-16 if I could pick anything though. ;)

Yep, apparently that IS the turtle, ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy! :D Edited.

That was...disturbing...to say the least. :shocking: Were those munchkin moans dubbed in or does a turtle really make that noise when he's...you know... :crazy:

Yeah, good stuff. Every program I make for my HOTAS, Saitek and now CH, has been inspired by the function of the F-16 HOTAS in Falcon 4. Even Black Shark; I looked at what was on the real cyclic and collective and added it in a place that matched the closest possible function on the F-16. There is a reason why the F-16 is layed out the way it is! :) I like how you've borrowed the inspiration and made it your own.

Good point, this is one thing that ED did very well.

I agree with you, about it not looking good down low, but you have to admit its about as good as it gets right now. Down low buildings would suffer the same way they do in LOMAC or Falcon -- polys pasted onto flat textures.

I'd like to see how they're going to manage. I think there's a good reasons to question it. No need to rehash all that, if you've played it, you know what I'm talking about even if you like it. With a study sim like the successor to Falcon release these days, you're going to need a DC that is equally realistic and convincing. Having a bazillion buttons in the pit won't mean a damn thing if the player is still stuck hijacking BARCAPs and such in an effort to compensate for all the idiocy of the AI HQ. Let me put in another way; I can play the F4 campaign comfortably and not get frustrated with it because I know its over 10 years old. I just use the ATO as a "suggestion" of what I'm supposed to do. Mostly I try to go out in the Viper and just stir up some trouble. That isn't going to be so appealing if that's all LP's new sim has to show for the new DC.

I hope so too. It's not going to take much to satisfy, so I would stick with what works. I think people will appreciate this more than if they try to be "original" and put out a sim for a different aircraft. They only exception would probably be the F-18 as most people would gladly take that. However, I'm going to have a good laugh if/when the new sim does NOT have a dynamic campaign. I have this sadistic desire to see LP's announcement: "The DC in F4 sucked. Get over yourselves. It was nothing more than a broken sandbox that had little to do with reality. We don't intend to pour effort into something that won't be up to snuff anyway, so we didn't include it." *work on the next OF and FF version is promptly embraced by the guys and Frugal's and old1997 code is stretched even further.* :megalol:

If you're going to register on this forum just to troll, do it like this guy did. :thumbup: P.S. Be glad it isn't called "Pink Shark". ;)

Yeah, and there may be nothing "wrong" with it, but someone thinks we don't need that many 187 may suffice, but someone doesn't think so. I guess it is inevitable. There was an uproar about the F-15 back in the day, and that was in the middle of the Cold War and the USAF was stuck with the Phantom, which SUCKED. Well, not really, but I've never been a fan of it.

I wonder if the F-22 will go down in history as the "Betamax" of modern fighters. Superior to what came before and its nearest competition, but having too many perceived disadvantages unrealted to combat performance to allow it to become the standard. 5th gen air superiority: back to the drawing board?

Also uncanny how those forward swept wing ones resemble this: http://www.lockonfiles.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&cid=245&lid=645&ttitle=WF-33_Levathian_Model_1.02#dldetails

It can all be expressed in a simple equation!! + = :)

Sooooooooooo...what on earth gives anyone the idea that it will be any more than Black Shark? Just bored and wanna post? :P ;)

You can switch roles in mission during Steel Beasts, and that's about as much a simulation as anything is. In fact, I envision the Apache could work in a very similar way.

I was gong to write this long post going into all the various scenarios of who would have such an aircraft in sufficient quantities and with enough other advanced kit to actually do some damage, but that's all just assumption. /Devil's advocate mode_1 WHO or WHAT? WHO or WHAT justifies the having the Raptor in the numbers that are being asked for? You can stay nebulous and say "unforseen 21st century threats", and that's all fine and good because you don't want to get caught with your pants down, but can it not get any more concrete than this? Shouldn't it be more concrete to justify more? If we look at the number of 4th generation aircraft and point to that and say "we need to replace these with the Raptor", shouldn't we also take into account the time period when those were produced -- the Cold War, when massive conventional warfare was a possibility? We aren't even talking about whether the Raptor should be developed, we're discussing if the US should buy an ass-ton of them! The USAF already has them! When numerical superiority is already present beyond what 99% of anyone could ever hope to have with aircraft technology that no one can produced for several years let alone match numerically, is it justified to point to Cold War-era numbers and say "we need that many"? For WHO or WHAT? If the WHO or WHAT does produce a Raptor-level fighter or bomber, can they make enough of them? Can they do so in a time frame that will hinder the ability to start making more Raptors? Are they going to pull the tarp off of a dozen squadrons of 5th gen stealth bombers one morning unbeknown to anyone? To build upon the previous questions, I mean them to assume that we're in the future current 4th generation aircraft are out of the picture. They're sitting in the desert somewhere falling apart, they've reached the end of their service life. If the 5th gens are such a force multiplier, why do you need so many of them? The 4th gens were created on a playing field where your opponent could respond to your new toy with a new toy of his own in a relatively short amount of time. Today we're in a situation where the previous opponent can just very recently match tech level of the last iterations of 4th generation aircraft (think AESA-equipped, Aim-120D, Aim-9X, JHMCS F-15s, but cannot match the numbers. Technology procurement has slowed and R&D budgets have shrunk. How quickly are the future threats likely to develop? With the entire planet so connected and monitored, isn't eveyone...like...going to literally see them from 1000s of miles away...pun intended? :D /Devil's advocate mode_0 You know that someone in the Pentagon has the answers to WHO or WHAT, which of course are a secret that no politician would ever share since they probably point the finger at some interesting "suspects". They aren't really suspects since it all just healthy batting of ideas, thinking of all the angles. Everyone country does that, I'm sure.