RedTiger

Yeah..wat? Hehe, I think they're second-rate, B stock proximity fuses that have been violently shaken while being immersed in sea water, but they are certainly present.

I'm pretty sure they can be effective vs. tanks if the skeet and submunition find one, I think each little submunition is a shaped charge which can penetrate the top armor of a tank and hit the engine. Wasn't it CBU-97s that stopped that Iraqi tank advance early in the second Gulf War?

Well, its a TANK. :P I'm glad that someone finds it a difficult nut to crack. Flight simmers in general tend to have a very unrealistic understanding of just how tough a tank can be, something I call "fish in a barrel" syndrome. ;) As ARM505 said, the A-10's gun is puny compared to the types of things a tank is designed to survive when being hit fromt he front. Even a CBU-97 would probably need to hit the engine to knock it out. This is strange, though, because I've never had any problems killing them. Using Mk-20s, they asplode just fine. I usually don't use 97s. Never had any problems with the GAU either, but I like to attack them from the side and rear because its fun to have to pull some lead to hit them. :joystick: Maybe that's why. Killing them with the gun is quite satisfying, I might add. They tend to keep rolling forward as flames begin to come out of the engine before a nice big brew-up.

The 27 and 33 carry a large amount of rather enormous missiles on underwing pylons. They also don't have those variable intakes. It doesn't bother me as much as it does in the F-15. ;) But yeah, my question applies to everything.

Hey, I have a question for an ED Tester or someone who would know; is fixing the problems LOMAC has with weapons drag/underpowered engines something that could be fixed in a new patch, or is this completely out of the scope of just a patch? I'm not talking AFM-level changes here, just making it easier to fly at high altitude trans-sonic without having to use burner all the time, mostly in the Eagle.

Yes, listen to Mr. Andy Bush. To put it mildly, he knows his stuff! :)

Unfortunately, my first flight sims aren't too vintage; Jane's WWII Fighters and Flanker 2.0.

Interesting!

The dual throttle is cool; a good bit of product differentiation there since no one currently makes one. And it's actually useful and realistic too since most DCS jets will have two engines. Also, they beat Saitek to the market for a FFB HOTAS. Also a good idea: pedals come with it. I've always wondered why Saitek didn't do this. Expensive? I don't think so. You can find a CH stick, throttle, and peddles all for about $100 each if you know where to look. A Cougar plus pedals will be at least that much, maybe a bit more. This thing comes with it all together. I also dig the F-15ish look to it. What does every HOTAS manufacturer have such a hard-on for the F-16? :P I hope that its totally pot-less too. I love CH, but I really wish they'd ditch potentiometers for something digital. Even Saitek won't completely get rid of them and still have to put them in the throttle. The only thing that turns me off is the fact that it is logitech. I have a logitech gaming mouse, but I won't own much beyond that. I've never liked the cheap plastic look of their hardware. I like sturdy stuff. I bought one of these: http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/keyboards.html over a G15 just because I could see the thing lasting about a year or two before dying. My only question is why now? Do they sense that flight sims are making a comeback? No buyers in this household, but still nice to see some competition! :)

Hey, that was pretty good! You even had a model in there for pulling Gs. Its amazing what can be done in an internet browser these days. As for the FM, I noticed that the plane is very docile when it comes to stalls and spins. I couldn't depart, it always flopped back over with the nose pointed down. I don't know if this was intentional or not, not every plane is a spinning death trap waiting to happen, of course. I did notice that the flight characteristics at slow speed were not what I expected. I nearly crashed on my first landing attempt because I was expecting a smooth glide but what I got was a plane dropping nose-downward like a ton of bricks. I had to fly the plane down to the runway and just chop the throttle to touch down rather than gliding down and flaring. Again, maybe this was intentional but it does seem a tad unrealistic to me. I'm not sure if the aircraft is modeling a real one, but you have some awesome thrust-vectoring nozzles on that thing. :) Good job! :)

Why would you want to swing the wings manually anyway? They're capable of moving automatically in the real thing. Does the model not sweep the wings when you're flying via the xml edit?

Seem's I'm really great at de-railing threads.... > > The cursor (meaning those lines that come from the top, bottom, and sides of the screen) stay put, they just unsnap. I haven't flown ANY flight sims in quite some time :cry: and I haven't flown the A-10 for even longer. I'm just gonna revoke my "second" so this thread can get back on track. I'll report back later in another thread if/when I get in the A-10 again.

Unfortunately I don't even have LOMAC installed at this point after the my recent reformat, so I can't try anything out. The Hog isn't my usual ride, but what I remember is that I can move the seeker to the target area, stabilize and then move it to a vehicle. The gate will snap to the vehicle, but if I move the aircraft, like even a very slight pitch up or down, it will unsnap. It might snap/unsnap several times in a few moments with even slight stick movements, and moving my thumb up to pickle is a great example of what I mean by "slight". Maybe I'm not locking...again, not my usual plane of choice. As for the flashing cross...I can't recall if I was waiting for that, but I know that you should. That might be the problem. They still seem very sensitive, far more than say Falcon where once you get the gate to snap, it will stay there until the target is completely out of the seeker's viewing angle limit, no matter how you maneuver. To repeat, maybe I'm not locking? Sounds like it. No clue how they work in reality though.

I usually like loud colors, but THAT is hideous. What's the point? If it actually helps some how, I guess it doesn't matter.

I second this. I have to basically hold my hand dead still on the stick just to get the gate to stick to anything and STAY THERE. It's not just ships, but vehicles too. It sucks to waste a precious maverick I intended for that Tunguska because I lose the lock as I move my thumb up to pickle.

Very true and very important. All the "stalls" except for the Frogfoots (Frogfeet? :D ) are scripted. There's not really a simulation of departure and more of a switch that is flipped that makes your plane flop around in a scripted way. If you watch from external views, you can really tell how fake it is. Your plane will freeze in mid air, jitter like a bowl of jelly, and then like a switch being flipped, "depart" in a way that really never changes. You can enter this "departure" at certain speeds and AOA in the Su-27 to induce a scripted tail slide, but again, the key word here is scripted!

If you live in the US, check OfficeMax. Believe it or not, I picked up a couple of copies of LOMAC Gold (Lock On + Flaming Cliffs) a while back. They've since sold out of them though. :( At this point I would just purchase in online.

LOL...TekaTeka posting was a dead giveaway. Get it? DEAD? :megalol: Check the date next time, gents. :P

You should try to find a video of it and check it out. As much as I complain about IL2's AI, it's startling sometimes how much is got "right" (flight models being the biggie) compared to LOMAC if you go soley on release alone. Yeah, I know this probably isn't totally fair since LOMAC is using Flanker code, which is much older than even IL2.

Those are all desktop-worthy spectacular!

What about how the water works in IL2 for carriers? I always thought that provided just enough pitching and rolling to make things dicey enough, but it wasn't anywhere near as realistic as an Advanced Flotation Model. I know ED's all about The Realism these days, but the water in LOMAC/Black Shark is so unrealistic, anything would be better. Probably no point though unless a carrier-based aircraft will be simulated.

The DCS F-15C...well, that's the holy grail for me at this point, despite for whatever I might have voted for originally. I'd love an Su-27 or MiG-29. An F-16 is welcome, and an F-18 would be too. But a DCS-level F-15C...that's like virgin territory man! Few seem to have any balls when it comes to doing sims on air to air only birds, not counting WWII, of course. The vbomber pukes always have to be mollycoddled. ;) I can't wait, all of Mower's "weaponeering" except instead of dropping bombs you have 20 barscan searches with all kinds of different search modes and bugging as many bandits as I have missiles on the jet. I'm hoping there's an alternate take-off mode call "zulu barn" that allows you to take off with a cocked jet. Awesome stuff!!! :) EDIT: Nevermind, I voted for the F-15 originally. :D

You might be able to do this with the programming software that your stick uses. YMMV though, depending on the stick. I'm trying to recall if the CH and Saitek software let you do this, but I can't remember. Oh yeah, IB4 "get TrackIR". :D TrackIR or some other head-tracking hardware is really what you want to shoot for, to be perfectly honest. If I had to choose between a HOTAS and no TrackIR and a cheapy joystick w/TrackIR, there'd be no contest...TrackIR all the way!

LOL! :lol: My vote always goes to the vPilot being too short, not the other way around. Someone who knows feel free to correct me, but I'm betting you have no trouble knowing when your speed brake is out in the real thing.

WTB 6DOF pls. :)