RedTiger

The red dot, the bracketed T, or both? I've never seen either of them. Did they move around with your view?

Why people always think its a good idea to quote and cite the most agenda-filled sources, I'll never understand. Did they miss a day in class that I didn't? Agendas are a no-no. When sorting out the truth, they're bad. It means that there's a motive to influence and convince, any 'facts' are simply a means to an end. If they get the 'facts' straight, its incidental and a happy accident. And what's more, agendas stink. You can smell them mile away! :D

I think there's plenty of good reasons for such a system. Try to imagine what the turn rate of an F-16 is when its full of A/G stores. I think its perfect for those types of situations.

Works in LOMAC! :smartass: Seriously, that is interesting. And seriously, it does work in LOMAC...sometimes. I've locked something up with EOS with R-27s selected, flipped on the radar at the right moment and have had it authorize the launch and guide the missiles to the target. What does he/she mean by "radar used just for the illumination".

It sure does take a buttload of flares for a plane that big. The whole idea of a B-52 low and fast pass with retarded bombs is pretty badass! :matrix:

Holy crap Shaggy! You work FAST! :shocking: Looks great!

That looks like one of my landings in Falcon 4. :ermm:

I'll go LOPE some Aim-54s to a MiG-29A and fight your F-15C armed with sparrows. Then we can discuss how the MiG-29A is a super plane for 5 years straight.

Welcome to the ED forums! :megalol:

The big difference for me between LOMAC and Falcon that defines the two sims is the mission editors. I think I just might be a unique and special snow flake in this department because I don't see too much discussion about this. BOTH have mission editors, but LOMAC's is far, far easier to use. Falcon's tactical engagement creator is a pain in the ass. Both can orchestrate very precise coordination between units. With LOMAC you can do this in minutes. Falcon's takes a lot longer because you have to fiddle with the speed and time on steer point numbers to get the sim to accept your flight plan and have the AI act accordingly. In LOMAC you can just fiddle with the times and give the AI a general behavior to follow. I have created huge missions in LOMAC with air to ground and air to air going on all at once in a few hours that would have taken 10 times as long in Falcon. You have to ask yourself several questions. Do you want to have precise control over the missions you fly or do you want to be given random missions that are never the same? Would you rather fly quick missions with a desired learning objectives or would you rather fly in something like Red Flag? Do you want control over accuracy at the expense of randomness or are you willing to put up with some gamey, unrealistic stuff to get that element of surprise? IMO, the realism of Falcon goes as far as the cockpit. The aircraft is modeled accurately and you have to spend a great deal of time to learn just how to operate it, but the environment in which you find yourself in the campaign is not very realistic. For example, people always told me "you have to realize the limitations of the campaign. It is what it is. Once you get over this, you'll enjoy it more". Very true. When I read about "BARCAP hijacking" in the Red Viper manual, something clicked and I started to enjoy the campaign more. Yes, taking one of the boring, useless BARCAP missions and changing it around to a sweep or SEAD is terribly unrealistic, but that type of thing is the key to enjoyment of Falcon. LOMAC has simplistic avionics and you can learn pretty much all the basic stuff you need to know about how to fight and fly by watching a couple of Ironhand's tutorials. Operating the aircraft is simple. What goes on in the simulation world, however, can be as complex as you make it. People are quick to ridicule the unrealisms in LOMAC, but really it is as realistic as you want it to be. You don't have to use gamey tactics, you can learn how to fight the realistic way. You can set up realistic, accurate missions -- ones you've read about or could reasonably expect a pilot of your aircraft to actually encounter -- and fly them over and over again. You can change things around, add things, take away things and see how that effects the outcome. You can set up missions just to focus on one particular aspect and fly those several times to understand the concept. And, if you want random encounters, there's always this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36455 :) Maybe it's just my personality, but I've found the latter to be far more entertaining and something I always come back for. Therefore, LOMAC is a shoe-in for my vote. The way I approach it seems to be similar to the way the military clients ED works with approach it. I prefer tactical fidelity and practicing defined concepts vs. OMFG randomness!!1. :P

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=16973&page=2 The problem is that someone necroed that thread from over 3 years ago and he posted in it. Now that there's a dedicated thread, more might respond.

Sorry for my response in the last thread, I truly thought you were being silly seeing as way you responded to my post in that necro thread. Are you flying 1.02 or Flaming Cliffs? 1.02 does not have the zoom access for TrackIR? You might also want to check if you have what ever axis you use for the zoom set as "axis" or "slider'. That might make a difference. If that doesn't help, could you explain the problems you are experiencing in a bit more detail?

Yep, especially if its the extended directors cut with more information! :D

Wouldn't it be grand if we could all stop this weapons-grade tomfoolery and focus on the real threats to everyone who has a modicum of respect for self-determination? This stuff wears on me the older I get. Is there anyone sane left out there? Would you like to work together and focus on combating those that would kill you without a second thought, or would you rather stare at each other and move your bombers and missile shields around like so many chess pieces? But what do I know? Keep rattling those sabres! :music_whistling:

By "more powerful", I assumed he meant overall, not literally in the amount of energy it projects.

:noexpression:

RAM coatings aren't really anything new, they've been around for quite a while. Russian's used them too.

Psst...I don't think he can hear you. You're answering a question from 3 years ago. The amount of necro-ing around here makes me wonder if some people have some weird forum settings that starts with Day 1 and works forwards to the present. :detective:

Not pretty and not dumb enough! :mad: :D

There's more to stealth than RCS. I wonder how it holds up vs. the F-35 in the electronic emissions department. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see too much change on the inlets. It still looks like a big gaping hole with a jet engine fan at the end for radar to bounce off of.

The PC guy from those Mac commercials. Clever, no?

IL2 gots tits, eh? *slowly makes his way to the shelf where the IL2 box is sitting so his wife won't notice*. ROFL @ Strike Fighters. Yeah, that was my take-away from the hour I spent playing WoE. LOMAC is missing, but I think I found her: http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=4346&pid=12685 :megalol:

Half a million for a piece of history. Where's the website that's selling MiG-29s? :(

Next time you find yourself saying this, think twice about saying it. :P

How are these babies coming along? :)