RedTiger

Your resident Falcon-doubter is going to give this a try. :D I bought a mint-condition binder copy of Falcon 4.0 from Jason of GoGamer and 777 studios fame a while back both as a collector's item and in case I ever wanted to give OF a try. So, I have a question. What is the mission editor in OF like? Is it any better than the one in Allied Force? Is there any version of Falcon that has an improved mission editor?

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_022a.html This review is for the 2006 version. IIRC from the article (not gonna take the time to re-read it and check :P ) the challenge, and therefore the fun, is trying to get some of the larger vessels in and out of port. Doing this with a container ship that's between three and four hundred meters long is quite a task.

Thanks for the clarification. :) You could maybe do some scripting with the CH control software to do some of that stuff. Don't ask me how though. I wanted to make a simple script to simulate a countermeasure program in LOMAC and my head nearly exploded. That type of stuff and me do NOT mix. This might answer one of my long-standing questions about who the hell has the time to use OSB buttons when flying. There are a few functions that you might need to do in combat that do require you to press OSBs.

ROFLMAO I am happy. :megalol:

@Pilotasso Yeah...what? The function of the buttons is literally written on a Cougar HOTAS. The F4AF manual has an entire section dedicated to the functions of each button and their corresponding keyboard presses for the sole purpose of HOTAS programming. It isn't hard to find out what buttons do on the real thing. So if you mean do I know how the real buttons feel, like they feel springy or mushy, no. If you mean do I know how they all come together in operating the avionics, I'd say I have a fairly good idea. ;)

I might just have to pick up a copy of FS9 and give this a try. I was waiting for FSX one, but I want to see what its like.

Here here! :D

Very nice! My compliments to the artist. I wish I knew how to make skins. I'd make the Ka-50's nose very shiny and red. :D

Yeah, that was a good producer's note. Maybe I should go back and watch the others now that I actually have the sim! :)

I have Saitek pedals. I would like to try the CH ones, but they seem very close together. The Saitek ones are nicely spaced.

The Powerglove? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfjE2z_x5k8 It's so bad. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :megalol:

Funny, I find the helicopter spinning around and bucking like a bronco at times and the first thing I do is look down to make sure those are still on! :P

I would recommend CH products over an x52 pro. I bought CH stuff to replace an x52 pro that was beginning to malfunction. From what info I got from Saitek's support forum, this isn't a unique occurrence. I wouldn't recommend avoiding pedals, even if you're not flying the Ka-50. You'll be surprised at what those pedals will do for you, even in a fixed wing aircraft. For a helicopter, I couldn't imagine using a twist stick. If you want a good deal on CH stuff and live in the US, check out provantage: http://www.provantage.com/ch~880CHPD.htm $100 for each piece vs. $150 directly from CH can't be beat. Even if you don't live in the US, I would still see if they'd be willing to ship to you. EDIT: If you do get pedals, I use the Saitek ones. I like the wider spacing. However, when those go belly-up, I'll try the CH ones. :)

Yay!

If I may lend my unquestionable credibility (:D) to his post, I too remember reading that the Apache was supposed to be next. It was around the time those first screenshots surfaced of its cockpit. I held that assumption for a very long time until relatively recently when I found, to my delight, that the A-10 would be out before the Apache. Even more recently it seems that its been confirmed to be the A-10C.

Missing something conceptual about trim Hey all! I have read the various threads and FAQs available about using trim. Concerning regular flight, I get it. I hold down trim, I get the helicopter stable, I let go. That lets me fly nice and stable without any major control movements. The thing I'm missing something on is this business of how often you're supposed to trim when maneuvering. Everyone says "trim often". I'm not understanding how trimming often helps me when maneuvering. My ability to fly is not up to the level when I get it, I suppose. If I'm moving around and changing directions, what benefit do you get from constantly trimming the helicopter? Why trim it for one direction when I'm going to be moving in another one so soon? Another way I can explain what I'm talking about is referring to a track that comes with the English version. Its called something like "Convoy Hunt". Its just a simple mission with one Ka-50 attacking a convoy. When the pilot gets to the part where he's strafing back and forth over the convoy, shooting his gun and gun pods, how often would you be trimming in that case? I guess I'm getting the mental image that I'm supposed to be spamming the trim like a monkey when my own experience so far has told me that trimming is for level flight, not maneuvers. I trim for level flight and then keep that trim while maneuvering. Once I'm done, I "clean up" the helicopter by re-trimming for level flight again.

If you have to seriously question whether or not you'd be willing to pay another $50 for the next DCS module, perhaps this isn't the hobby for you. I'll assume that you didn't plunk down the thousands of dollars some of us have for computer upgrades, HOTAS, TrackIR, rudder pedals, etc. After all, if you did, would another $50 be that big of a deal? ;) Hmm....on second thought, you might want to give up PC gaming altogether. :D

This is so true. If the visuals stink, I find it very difficult to immerse myself in it.

The Fighterstick has a throttle wheel on it which you could use as the collective. This should be fine. The main drawback, and its a big one IMO, is the lack of buttons on a dedicated throttle. That being said, all I'm doing at the moment is flying Ka-50, not fighting with it, and I have a surplus of free buttons on both the Pro Throttle and Fighterstick.

This doesn't have to do with the Ka-50, but it does give a brief look at how such a thing is handled with a military aircraft: http://www.simhq.com/_air10/air_316a.html

IIRC, that music is a naval hymn, hence being used in Red October. You should have had the Ka-50 take off from the Admiral for that video. :D

LOL! I forgot that you were on these boards now to set us whippersnappers straight! :lol: I think comparisons and discussions like this are pertinent, to a point. So long as we dont hijack the thread. :D I tend to think of flight sims as something akin to a real-time war game like CM with just a much more limited amount of control. Both have a lot going on under the hood.

If you were part of the BFC community when I was, almost 10 years ago ;) , you would have seen that those grognards (the real ones, the ASL veterans, of which not so many are left over there :) ) preferred handmade, historically accurate scenarios. I can remember discussions about the following in quick battles: 1. "Cherry picking" desparate units rather than using the accurate TO&Es to make a very powerful, but historically inaccurate force composition. 2. Point costs for QBs without regard to historical rarity. You could load on Tiger Is and field them en masse even thought this was actually a fairly rare tank with only about 1300 made. You could do the same with even more obscure and rare units. I can remember the uber-Hetzer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzer Very powerful as modeled in the game due to its sloped armor and very cheap because of its lack of turret. However, it wasn't nearly as common as it seemed to be in QBs. There were similar arguments made about the UK Fireflies. 3. Unrealistic engagements such as the meeting engagement. Allies should predominately be on the attack, Axis defending. 4. Unrealistic experience levels. Again, see the part about point cost without regard to rarity. In reality you would be fielding Conscripts, Green, and Regulars. Veterans would be rare, reserved for airborne units perhaps, Crack even rarer, Elite rarer still. Besides point costs, nothing prevented you from using Vets all the time in QBs. Admittedly, much of this was corrected in CMBB. My stay over there was mostly right after CMBO was released. Its ironic you bring up Combat Mission, because that game is where I learned to appreciate a well designed scenario. The community made PLENTY of them and I always enjoyed them more than QBs, both against the AI and other players. It was far more fun to be forced into an accurate fight, even if very difficult. It made you appreciate how heroic a guy like Michael Wittman must have seemed after something like Villers -Bocage. It made you appreciate how tough those gentlemen in the 101st Airborne were at Bastogne. Overall, it gave you a much richer more satisfying experience, IMO, at least. :)

They most likely wouldn't be. And neither am I, probably for similar reasons. If you think the ground war in F4 is realistic, look closer. In terms of the Big Red Blob moving south towards Seoul, maybe. In terms of how the units actually deploy and fight each other, not so much. I've sat there and watched some pretty goofy things going on between Blue and Red ground forces through the TV picture of my maverick. I value "tactical fidelity" as mattpeckham said. Matt, I'd like to officially coin that phrase right now, with your permission. It is absolutely brilliant, I couldn't have said it better myself!:thumbup: "Tactical fidelity", IMO, should be the sole focus of a flight sim. If I'm sitting in a cockpit, my concern should be the same as the pilot's would be. The absolute highest level of concern I should have should be if I'm the overall mission commander. Note, this is still tactical. If I blow up a significant bridge in error, and this affects the tide of the entire operation, the effects of it should be those that would be viewable from the pilot point of view, even if that is very limited -- which it might very well be. I do not want to land and then suddenly have to put on my CINC and order engineers around on a big map of Korea to fix that bridge because "Oh no! 1st Division's counter attack depends on it!" I also shouldn't have any control over ATO, or supply numbers. If that means taking away my ability to switch out my stores because I prefer mavericks over iron dumb bombs, so be it. I feel that there are very good war games out there that simulate the operational and strategic level far better than a flight sim will, since THAT is their sole focus. ;) Thank you for proving one of my points. The fact that you find it too much work, while perfectly ok since this is just your preference, makes me dislike dynamic Campaigns all the more. Mission making is an experience in of itself. Crafting a mission to be playable but yet realistic is very satisfying. BTW, funny you mention "too much work" and SBPro in the same sentence. Go ask Ssnake how long it took to make some of those scenarios in SBPro. ;) Until there's an F4-style dynamic campaign can have this level of tactical fidelity, I'll mostly pass. I'd rather pay a monthly fee for on-going creation of professional, military-grade missions to fly than get another Falcon 4 dynamic campaign for free! :D I don't know if ED has a military version in the works, but it could possibly be both. Why must these be mutually exclusive? I used to play TacOps quite a bit. That war game is intended for training battalion-level commanders basic tactics. It also makes a wonderful entertainment product. Which is funny, BTW, since TacOps is very similar to Combat Mission. Combat Mission is more similar to Black Shark than you think! ;)

@MBot I'll be plain about it, Falcon 4 is the only DC I've ever experienced. So my opinions are based solely on it. I'm not a huge fan of it, as you can tell. :) I normally wouldn't care to comment, but sometimes I have trouble understanding why so many people like it so much.