RedTiger

Hey, I have a question. Is this going to affect the A-10 too, or only the F-15? As you know, the A-10's RWR is almost identical to the F-15 in LOMAC, if not completely identical.

Hey Yoda! This is a great idea! This would add some functionality to the F-15 and some extra immersion. My 2 cents: use whatever you can find for the sounds if you can't get the actual F-15 ones. I think the sounds from Falcon would be perfect. I'm betting that the RWR part of the TEWS can be reprogrammed to have different sounds, so having the same sounds as the F-16 doesn't seam too bad. I'd rather have the mod with F-16 sounds than no mod at all. :)

I'm amazed price is even debated. The price is very reasonable for such a niche product. My opinion is that $150 isn't even that much money to begin with, but I know others may disagree. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I figured that most people around here have spent a great deal more that $150 on their computer, HOTAS/Joystick, rudder pedals, etc.

Kick ass...reminds me of WWII gun camera footage from a P-47.

Did you photoshop that one in any way? It's beautiful.

I voted yes, but: 1. Really what you should also ask is for opinions on threat intensity. The extremes would be WWIII circa 1985 or whether its something like policing the no-fly zone in Iraq. 2. The relationship between the two. Mission length can have a very strong an inverse relationship with threat intensity. I think it is a safe assumption that flying a mission over 2 hours only get shot down will not be viewed as fun unless that person is a masochistic fanatic. There's a very good chance that the player's sim session will end right there and there will be less motivation to pick up that mission later...ESPECIALLY in a sim that does not have triggers or any random elements in the mission. Vekkinho's example is perfect because I can relate it to my experiences with F4AF. I can tell you I NEVER flew the Allied Force campaigns. Falcon 4.0 simulates a kind of "hyper-reality". It says so even in the original instruction manual. ;) The idea is that it eliminates some of the less intense missions a fighter pilot might experience in favor of more action. A side effect is that it can be rough on those first couple of days, lots of bandits, lots of SAMS and AAA. The thought of putting up with all this AND having to fly from Italy and back, refueling at the tanker both ways was a big turn-off. I just stuck with the Korean campaign since the missions were relatively short and going to the tanker was almost never necessary. It would also depend on the type of mission. Put me in an F-15 in a long mission and I might not mind. I've made missions in LOMAC that have required refueling at the tanker and have been plenty intense. If I like what I'm doing, I'll likely enjoy longer missions more. :D

Thanks for answering my "quesiton". :D

Had no idea this existed. BUMPING for more attention. :)

Quesiton; what exactly is meant by 'war reserve modes'...longer detection ranges? Or is that even known? BTW...you're making me sad about the prospects of DCS: Eagle with this type of talk. :cry: :P

As far as LOMAC goes, there's this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41170 Particularly #4. ED has some fixed wing aircraft in the works for future DCS titles, besides the A-10C. They have the F-15C, F-16C, MiG-29A, and Su-27S/P...to name all the ones I actually give a hoot about. :)

I think that's the key here because, man, we are a long way off from looking at a computer simulation and having it be completely indiscernible from reality...if that ever happens. I think we'd need a new type of screen or method of displaying the graphics with some really heavy-duty processing power for all the little tiny details. I would predict that it would be so difficult to achieve that it would dwarf the effort of just doing some actual, real-life training. Anyway, I think the point is to have it run flawlessly at a constant frame rate. Stutters are a huge immersion breaker.

1, 2, & 4. I cannot say that I've ever flow that mission, or any of Thomas' others, but you should probably be aware that his missions are know for being a little...excessive...when it comes to the amount of air defense. I think they're supposed to be like playing Doom on Nightmare difficulty. :D You aren't the first to play one of those missions and be frustrated or be critical of how dangerous/unrealistic the missions are. 3. Out-running the AI...well, yes and no. If they run out of fuel, they will turn and head home. If you can make it to a SAM umbrella, they will fly into it and be forced to evade SAMs. But they don't really have any concept of living to fight another day like a human would. They're like borg pitbulls with bad brains. ;) 5. I don't I can remember ever living through a SAM. They seem to kill you more often than air to air missiles, for sure.

First of all, they (as usual) have the price of the x52 all out of whack. You can get it for much less. Second, and most of all, yet again I am baffled by ANOTHER review that says the Fighterstick is intended for large hands. Hogwash. Poppycock. Balderdash. Bullsh*t. ;) I by no means have large hands and I have no problems, NONE, with the Fighterstick. You'll hear some say that its modeled after the F-16's stick and the F-16's stick sits lower than your average desk top level. BULL...I've used it at desktop level just fine. My opinion; the reviewers don't fully understand the concept of a HOTAS. You don't fly around with your thumb on the pickle button all the time. Speaking from playing Falcon, the target and display management switches are right where your thumb can easily reach them since you use these constantly. Countermeasures management switch is equally easy to reach. You rarely use trim and you only pickle when in combat. I'm guessing that if someone made a PC controller of this: http://hirevsims.com/01prod/fltcontrl/uh6001.jpg ...some hapless reviewer would claim that you need a ginormous hand with 6 thumbs to have any hope of using it. :idiot:

If that sim was available to the public (LOL at the "recommended system requirements"), do you think people would still gripe and whine if it didn't have a dynamic campaign? ;)

So, at a glance, these "chem-trails" are intended to effect the weather, causing all kinds of nefarious side-effects? I've also seen that it's used for population control. I can remember reading J. R. R. Tolkien's commentary on why Frodo was able to take the ring to Mount Doom in Return of the King. He said that Sauron was evil, and evil's greatest weakness in his opinion, was that it could only think in terms of evil. Surely the Men would try to harness the One Ring as a weapon! He never considered the idea that they might choose a loftier goal of just destroying the thing once and for all. Where am I going with this? Does anyone else ever notice that conspiracy nuts are incapable of thinking that any power can be, would be, or IS used for bettering humankind? Why must everything be used for destruction and control? Have they ever thought that there's the possibility that if someone could actually effect the weather, they would, I don't know, like prevent hurricanes or other types of destructive weather? Global dimming? Why the hell would they want to destroy the planet they live on? Perhaps they're aliens or have at least invented a system for faster than light travel to escape to a New World Order government-created colony they've established on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. :lol: I think people are just hungry for conflict and causes to champion...like retarded hungry for them. :D

This. It's designed to detect threats and direct Ka-50s to attack them. There was a two-seater Flanker variant that did this same type of thing, Su-3XXXX....or whatever. Don't remember the designation. :P

Has anyone noticed besides me that enemy fighters in BS don't seem to want to, well, fight each other? Did I do something wrong on my attempts back when I still had it installed? Yeah, I know, helicopter sim, but still, I had to take a peak since this is where my real interest is. I set up a US F-15 and Russian Su-27 on opposing sides flying directly at each other. I can't remember if this was gunzo or they had missiles, but what I do remember is the AI just twitching the planes towards each other for a second and then turning back on course. Both had SOP to engage other fighters...

My standard advice is to consider how serious you are about flight sims. Less serious = regular x52. More serious = CH. (you could substitute Cougar here for CH maybe, I can't say I've ever used a Cougar so I cannot comment). I would strongly disagree that the x52 pro is worth the extra money, this is coming from someone who owns one. It is certainly superior to the standard model, but not so much as to warrant the extra cost vs. CH products/Cougar. If you hunt around, you can find a Fighterstick and Pro Throttle for about $100 USD each. I'd rather spend the extra $50 USD for CH. CH is top of the line stuff at the top price point. There are only equals, nothing better.

Well sir, why do you think I posted it? :megalol: Humor is best when it is like Pac Man -- many levels. :)

I'm hoping they get the FPAFM (fireman's pole advanced friction model) fully tested and correctly implemented. :lol:

Yes, that would work well, but think about this; we already have pilot deaths recorded. While it would probably be easy to have the pilot's captured or MIA status recorded (Falcon 4.0 does this), how meaningful is this really? I don't know about you, but I tend to look at pilot deaths as little more than a blemish on my record. It doesn't stop me from trying the mission over or progressing to the next one. So if my pilot's captured, I'm just going to either hit the rewind button or magically rescue him in time for the next mission! MIA vs. death isn't important to me beyond a kind of "gee wizz" sort of stat. Fun to have, not required.

Oh, yeah, that's true. :D

Do you mean that there are several different F-15 LO cockpit mods? I've only seen the ones at lockonfiles. Where are the rest?

Here's my wish/request/idea: For DCS: Eagle, there needs to be an additional start-up option besides ramp, taxi, and runway. It should be called "Zulu Barn" and it should place the jet in the hanger cocked and ready to be scrambled for intercept!

Let me introduce you to my awesome pal! His name is "out of scope". Say hi, "out of scope"! ;) I think the best test for determining what feature would be useful for DCS is to remember that the series is supposed to support ED's pursuit of military contracts. Think about a feature you find interesting or think is useful. Would a military client also find it interesting or useful? While doing something like making consequences for ejecting over enemy territory or even simulating your pilot's survival and escape as he soaks up moisture from leaves with a spounge and eats earthworms would have a certain element of fun to it, it isn't likely to be something a military client would be interested in. And IMO, the chances are it also wouldn't be very realistic. Remember that military training is just that, training. Sometimes an exercise could be run again giving the "morts" an opportunity to improve. I've even heard of cases where the whole simulation is stopped, morts are "resurrected" and allowed to try again. The idea is that you will learn more from actually trying again than staying dead and twiddling your thumbs while the rest of the exercise goes on without you! Some of what you're talking about is simply out of the scope of a flight simulator. The objective is to teach you how to fly and fight in an aircraft, not how to hobble your injured virtual pilot around the country side as he tries to evade a bunch pissed-off militia. I realize that I'm picking on just one of your ideas, but I think it still helps to apply this kind of thinking to others. :)