RedTiger

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but does this mean that ED has contracts to create F-15C, Su-27P, MiG-29A, etc? I don't know if you'd call those "modern". I ask because its interesting if they do. I've often thought it would be neat if ED had a similar situation with the Su27SM that they had with the A-10C: they have a contract for it from the Russian air force but then get the go-ahead to make a commercial version of it.

I remember a thread a while back about Windows 7 beta. Has anyone been using it for a while now? How's it working? I would assume Black Shark runs ok, what about LOMAC and all the flavors of Falcon?

The black screen is a common issue with Falcon, at leas on an Nvidia card. You can get it on Allied Force too. The fix for me usually to turn off anti aliasing.

Interesting. I would assume that they'd have some effect since at the very least they have radios. @pauldy I've always wondered if AWACS lets AI planes find enemy aircraft better. I haven't really seen any benefit and haven't ever noticed what you observed. Maybe I never payed attention to how the AI handles other AI.

Hey, I was wondering, in LOMAC do the AI units share information from the Russian data link? For example, do SAMs benefit from an EWR or AWACS?

Good gravy does that look good!!! You get points for including that snappy Mirgorod scheme in my book!

I think that a good rule of thumb is to ask "can ED make a sim that military clients could use to actually train pilots?". If the answer is no, then it cannot be made into a DCS module. Imagine how a compromise on realism would effect military training. There cannot be any compromises.

Saying Falcon 4.0 succeeded as a product and using RV and OF as your example is like saying that a movie succeeded by pointing out how many torrent seeds there are for it. Succeeded for who? Not those who stood to profit from it, that's for sure. Thus, it was a failure as a product. As for its performance as a sim, I like to think of it as an the very zenith of an evolutionary dead-end. For that type of sim experience, it never got any better than that. Now I think with DCS we're branching off and evolving in a new way. Really, it may be that Falcon wasn't a dead end. Maybe someone will evolve it further, Fighter Ops perhaps? Sorry to respond to this so late in the thread, but I thought this was rather informative: I also vastly prefer this and its easy to understand why a military would prefer this. Flight sim fun for me are all about setting up the pieces and hitting the "GO!" button. I don't know why exactly, but I've always found it more fun to put one group in one corner (controlled by me), another group in the other corner and watch how we duke it out. Then change some variables and try again. I can do that for hours at a time, literally.

I would pay for it if they surprised us one day with one, but I don't think they should do it.

Hmm...now, I wouldn't say that. :) I don't mind air to ground so much, just as long as I can shoot anything down that gets in my way and then hassle with anything that flies once I drop my bombs. Sure, I'd rather drive the sports car, but I can settle with the sport sedan. I'm gimped, but not as gimped as the pukes driving their minivans and SUVs. But if you're happy settling with those, knock yourself out. :D

Reading threads like this make me wonder -- am I just too easily amused? My wife would say yes. :D I haven't even touched the campaigns and rarely ever do. Most of my flight sim time is usually based around flying missions with certain objectives or goals that I want to focus on. I find that I don't need much of a virtual world outside of the pit. I guess if I could use an example, most of the time I'm just flying stuff to keep up currency. I'm not participating in Red Flag or Mary every single night. I've tried that, but I lose interest fairly quickly. The demands upon my attention are too high. A while back I finally clicked with the campaign in Red Viper and flew several missions nightly for a time, but as soon as something else grabbed my interest, I stopped and I haven't been back. I put aside flight sims for a good while in the past few months, actually. When I picked them up again I didn't have the patience to pick up my Red Viper campaign. I don't know if this on topic or not, but to get it back on topic, I'll also say that I would also like better AI. I'm talking about BS, I mean I always want better AI since I play off-line. :D

Well, VolkVoland, you missed what I was getting at about the "battle rifle" two times, choosing to ignore my explanation that I was using the term generically the second time and arguing against a point that I did not even make, or in some attempt to educate me. You do understand the concept of "generic", right? How about next time I just say "gun" and then there's no misconceptions you'll feel the need to clear up, fair enough? :P You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by "Western-style". "Western-style" does not mean "NATO", not as I mean, at least. = "Western-style" as far as I'm concerned. You could also add in something about about very high sophistication in military technology -- and a purposeful, well-planned increasing escalation of said technology. It represents, in my mind, what the US military had at the very end of the Cold War, or as I like to say, "the point when it got it's sh*t together". Feel free to educate me with all the specifics I'm missing and clear up my misconceptions. :smartass: All sarcasm aside and with all respect, I do admit that you know more than I do, albeit with more than a little bias. ;) I would appreciate it if you'd read what I said a little closer, in some of my responses. I'll admit I do tend to speak in a very high, macro level since this is usually as deep as my interest goes, so you'll have to excuse me for not going into all the nitty gritty that you know of. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm ignorant of it, at least in some cases. :) I'm through with this off topic back and forth, I've said my peace. Maybe the thread will get back on topic.

Yeah, but what's the sortie rate on those vs. the F-16s?

I hate to summarize it as such, but: 1. You're really getting into semantics with the battle vs. assault rifle. Imagine what I meant as a generic "a rifle that you provide to an army". I wasn't being specific as to the differences between the two. 2. Yes, I say "got away", again, its sematics. I'm not talking about the competition with the idea Kalashnikov went in an opposite direction as others -- not specifically his competition, I'm not talking specifically about them -- he left play between mechanical parts and loosened tolerances. Ever seen a Vietnam-era AKM fired full auto vs. an M-16A1 filmed on a high-speed camera? The differences are staggering! One jostles around and rattles, parts jerking about violently, the other stays fairly rigged through out. It isn't an indication of quality or effectiveness, just design philosophy. :) 3. Yep, I'm aware of where the AK has come 1949-present. Impossible is it? How many pristine airstrips did the US have during the Cold War in the US and abroad? No, it isn't impossible. Either they didn't have the capability (which is just silly to say. You can't mow the grass sticking through the runway? :D) OR they didn't see the need or didn't care. Soviet equipment was far from defensive. STOL and FOD grills were just as much a part of a doctrine that called for taking off from anywhere to support a ground offensive as any defense of the frontier borders. I would be careful about this generalization. If you're referring to the Axis, they conscripted just like anyone else. It was more of a lack of cohesive war-fighting alliance like the Allies had and a late transition to a war economy that did them in. Another topic, another thread. Typical where? Here on these boards? No, it isn't. I'd daresay few here misunderstand why the Soviet armed forces did things they way they did. However, they also understand the limitations and short-comings of running things this way, of which there are many. :) Refer to Vekkinho's post. ;) What you consider impossible, the US did back then and does currently. If I may say so, the reason why we are able to do is precisely because we run a smaller, professional volunteer-only armed forces. The smaller numbers and fact that people voluntarily sign up to serve allow for better training for recruits. Which also allows for better maintenance of those high-tech "delicate" aircraft. The Soviet's large standing army was very much an instrument of the offense, or perhaps counter-offense. I hold no such stereotype of a Soviet suicide-horde. I've got two words for you -- David Glantz. ;) What is interesting is that despite the fact that Russia is still enormous, they're trying to transition more to a Western-style armed forces in some respects. If nothing else, THAT should tell you something.

Thanks! :)

LOL at that skin in the second one. I can find some appreciation of it, lets hope others can too! :P

That wiki is just waiting for someone to add content to it. Is there an English version?

There's a line, though, that you cross where you're just making redundancies at the cost of effectiveness. A battle rifle is one thing; a great deal of its use will involve shooting in the general direction of something, but not aiming at an actual target. There have been studies that have compared the amount of small arms fire in WWII vs. the number of casualties from it. Those show that the vast majority of fire didn't kill or wound anybody. This is normal of course, since a lot of small arms fire is involved in suppression of the enemy until they can be killed by arty, aircraft, or by other infantry maneuvering in for a kill. Mikhail Kalashnikov got away with making a loose-fitting rifle with looser tolerances because of the way that rifle was to be used. The analogy was meant to relate to aircraft. Aircraft are different, right? If I have to choose between an aircraft that can operate in dirty, FOD-filled conditions, but does so with less lethality and an aircraft I have to go over with a fine-tooth comb to keep clean but can kill stuff from 60nm in total darkness. I'll choose the latter. All I have to do is recruit skilled people and train them well. I would rather make up for a weakness on the "back end" in training, skill, and maintenance then have to make up for a weakness on the "front end" by sacrificing lethality for ruggedness...if that makes any sense... :noexpression:

Which do you think has had more of an impact since 1998, change in the market or the fact that what goes as a passable flight sim has changed? Some people call the 90's the golden age of flight sims. I scoff at that notion since I don't think you can really compare this: 1991: with this: 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol4yU1uCNRo&feature=related What was consider a flight sim back then would be a joke now. LOMAC is light years beyond Falcon 3.0 but its still considered a light sim. Was something like Falcon 3.0 just as difficult to make as Black Shark is today? I find it really hard to believe that to be true. Ok, then here's the million dollar question. Why does Eagle Dynamics do it? For the love of their craft? Out of a sense of charity? Or is just a side project to what they consider the big fish, military contracts? Thank goodness they do, but what motivates them?

I can remember a conversation on Combat Mission general forum years back about the Kalashnikov and its mythic ruggedness and reliability. "You can throw it in mud, clog it with dirt, and it will STILL shoot!", they said. A Marine then smartly made a point that was something like "Who the $#@% throws their rifle in the mud?!". His point was that the M-16 he used was a good rifle, all you had to do was keep it clean and take care of it -- which he received PLENTY of hands-on experience learning to do. The point is this; comparing a rifle that will still shoot if you treat it like a farm tool with a rifle that will shoot just as well with some basic care (in other words, you treat it like a firearm ;) ) is silly. So where do you stop treating your fighters like tractors and begin to treat them like sophisticated pieces of hardware, taking off from paved FOD-free runways? Right...about...here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md00oEyn6kg ;) I'll trade the ability to take off from a dirt road any day of the week for the capability to do this.^^^

Crazy how they tried the concept of splicing A-10 with an MMOG. Also interesting is that the first bit about developer and programmer longevity sounds familiar from my readings on the development of the various sucky MMOGs that have been disparately trying to capitalize on the success of WoW, but it can be said of any computer game. Musical chairs in the dev team is never a good sign. It has "vaporware" written all over it. Funny how the Longbow DC was likened to "smoke and mirrors". :music_whistling:

And this is why I find it interesting: The "peptalk" you hear, to my recollection, never talks about mission readiness or cost. Cost, for one thing, everyone admits is very high. Ask someone who has nothing but nice things to say about the Raptor, like maybe....hmm...GGTharos? :D Ask him if he thinks Raptors are cheap. Its obvious that they are not. Mission readiness is another thing. If someone wants to step up to the plate here and defend that, I'd like to hear it. This is from tflash's "other perspective": This is interesting because this was along the lines of my first thoughts. Not exactly, but similar. My thought was that lower mission readiness would probably be expected. It is a very sophisticated piece of hardware that isn't even close to being considered the "backbone" of the USAF fighter force. It might be employed very selectively. I also considered the fact that NOTHING, no weapon system is perfect in all areas. Weaponry often sacrifices something that the developer considers a secondary or tertiary concern for benefits elsewhere. The Abrams tank's turbine engine is a gas guzzler, but you don't see anyone mention that. The performance comes at a cost. If you consider the country that uses it and its originally defensive role in Europe, it becomes more clear why that decision might have been made. Another one off the top of my head is the RD-33 engine sacrificing engine life for power in full-on "war mode". Perhaps the F-22 sacrifices mission readiness for its capability as a force multiplier and vanguard for the legacy fighters? Once the door is kicked in and stealth isn't as necessary (you can fly around with tanks and external weapons), it is interesting to consider what the mission readiness would be.

I hope you're serious about this one. You could make an Eagle, Falcon, or any fighter carrier-ready and that doesn't necessarily mean jack about its ability to achieve air superiority or drop bombs. Care to explain what exactly makes a USN Hornet kill bandits and blow up stuff better than the non-carrier export versions? What about the A-10 and Su-25? So those aren't battle worthy? How about if we develop the F-22N, carrier-ready and all...will it all of sudden be an implement of war in your eyes? Su-27S = POS Su-27K = THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!! amirite? :P EDIT: Interesting article, BTW. ;)

Color photos from that period of time, particularly from Nazi Germany, always amaze me and give me the chills. It all seems so much more real and so much more recent. That picture of Goering (I think its him, he has a weird look on his face) might as well be a modern picture of a modern statesmen caught in a candid photo talking perhaps to his staff. Then I take a step back and really look at his elaborate dress uniform and it reminds me of what time period I'm viewing and what that stood for. Then I realize who it is I'm looking at and I'm in disbelief. I look at nameless mens' faces and always wonder if these men had any inkling of the darkness and evil that was going to be unleashed and whether or not they had any notion of what the fate of their leaders and nations would eventually be. Its so, so much different than seeing a grainy old black and white picture, at least for me it is.

I like Russian aircraft as much as anybody, but I cringe when I realize that people actually think the Su-47 is a real aircraft intended for production, let alone something intended to be a modern 5th generation fighter. I would think Sukhoi and the Russian Air Force would find that insulting to their intelligence. :P