RedTiger

THE most intriguing thing from that video was towards the end of the second part. He said that maneuverability and having a gun would continue to be important because the Raptor doesn't carry a terribly large amount of missiles. You can assume he's talking about keeping the jet clean and stealthy I guess. His opinion that it may end up being that the Raptor has to gun down its enemies is hard to believe. Cetainly you train for it, but would you actually do it in all but the most dire of circumstances? Sending that expensive plane into a gunzo sounds like a bad idea. As good as it may be, you'd be increasing the chances of it being lost, probably exponentially higher than the chances at BVR. I think its much more likely you'd hang around and help out the F-15s, F-16s, etc. on datalink that you've just kicked in the door for if you didn't immediately RTB.

No. It stinks that it was removed, I watched it several times before then. He said that this was a rookie mistake. Think about it, why would an experienced pilot do this?

You know, I'm going to risk all-out war here and just say I don't get what the big deal about all this is. Why is it so painful for people to possibly consider a plane that was developed in the mid 90s, operational in the 2000s, in which the country with the biggest military budget in the world, which never stopped researching and developing at full steam and probably spared no expense, building on the experience of another aircraft from 30 years before with a proven combat record just might, you know, be really good? Forget about who makes it...just view it as an aircraft. Is that possible? Does that help it to be seen simply for what it is and is not? Is it the fanbois who kill it for you? :D That pilot said more in comparison to the USAF's own legacy aircraft vs. the Raptor than anything disparaging about the Sukhois vs. the Raptor! He was using those experiences to compare the tactics used againsts the Sukhois. Honestly, he was putting the Raptor and the Sukhoi in the same category as "planes better than the F-15 and F-16". He was giving similarities between fighting both of them WVR since they both have thrust vectoring. Another thing too; he pointed out that pilot skill is still the most important thing. Yeah, in the same breath he said "WVR vs. the Raptor doesn't happen because you die before you get to the merge", he did mention that a rookie mistake in the F-22 is to get greedy and pull more angles than it can handle without stalling.

Damn it...did you have to necro this thread? Couldn't you have just linked to it? You got my hopes up there for a second. I thought I had missed something huge. :cry: :doh: What are you talking about, anyway? What jump in hardware?

I'll give you some points in his comments about the French in Red Flag and GW. True or not, that was harsh. :shocking: Other than that, I don't think he was as one-sided as he could could have been. He gave the Indians props on their professionalism. He felt that the MiG-21 Bison their vets flew was a good WVR plane and made no reservations about expressing that. He went so far as to give his assessment that the Su-30MKI was slightly better than the F-15 and F-16 and basically said that it is a matter of the Indians getting some flight hours in it to be up at the levels those Viper and Eagle pilots are at -- which makes sense given the fact that there are guys out there with thousands of hours in those planes. The bit about the FOD damage was crazy. I wonder what exactly made those Flankers more susceptible to FOD? Lower quality construction? Lower quality metal? The information about the F-15's ability to fight with an actual combat load parallels a discussion elsewhere on this board. Am I the only one who didn't know this? I find that amazing!

WTF is up with all this sick-ass association with you all's penises and your flight stick? Is that really the first thing that comes to mind...handling your own stick? Maybe thats why I keep trying to get my wife to sit down to give flight sims a try by handling my stick... :shifty:

Yeah, it sucks. I don't want to buy FS9. I don't really want to buy FSX either. ;) However the prospect of getting to fly around the world in a Super Bug, taking off from San Antonio International is just too freaking cool to pass up. :pilotfly: And that REX stuff is probably worth the purchase price alone.

Someone spewing out garbage on a board for a major mainstream publisher? Are you sure? :P That sucks. Boards like that are a haven for idiots and mental children that don't have anything better to do. I read the LOMAC boards from time to time, they seem pretty mouth breather-free. I hope they ban him. :D

What's REX? BTW, I have heard the same about the realism level. No blowing up stuff, but I was at least happy that you could drop bombs and bug/lock aerial targets.

Ok...time for me to chime in. I prefer it to the side. Until someone invents a HOTAS that has the base of the stick resting on the ground with the stick angled to the side a bit for ergonomics, I'll always prefer that. PLus I've seen the ends some go to get it set in the middile, it just looks really uncomforable. You wanna talk about being a man? Sitting with my legs squished together on rudder pedals while trying to move a stick around between them would be...uncomfortable in the way men REALLY don't like to feel discomfort. ;) I don't exactly have skinny legs. ;) I currently have mine off to the side and at an angle and not directly in line with my arm (no room, table is in the way). Not realistic, but its as good as I can get it at the moment.

Yep, heard that before. :)

Thanks for the link to that thread. :)

Title says it all. Which do you think works better/looks cooler/have in your home setup? And explain. :)

Glad to hear that its almost ready. I wish the FSX version could be released at the same time. I'm thinking about using this as an excuse to buy FSX. :music_whistling:

That is a very good skin. I'm using it right now. The F-15 schemes, like the Su-27, seem to be difficult to nail. To my eyes, some of the real mod eagle schemes look more blue colored than some modders are willing to make them. I make an exception for the Oregon ANG one since it looks sooooo good. :) The only other Eagle skins I use are a set D-scythe made that replace all but one of the skins. In my opinion, those are the most true to life skins in terms of a non-specific F-15 paint scheme. I've never heard anyone talk about D-scythe's skins around here, but he really is quite good at it. I'm using his MiG-29 ones too. All of them can be found at lockonfiles.

I would be inclined to agree with you, but I think Steam is becoming the standard way to distribute online now. Direct2Drive is still around, but I get the feeling that Steam is becoming the standard. My prediction; Microsoft will attempt to purchase Steam in the near future.

So, lets be specific here. MODMAN will work with my Steam copy of Black Shark? Can you explain how? Realize that if the answer to this is "no" then you are expecting modders to create multiple formats for their mods. Who says everyone will be willing to do that when we have very good pre-established methods of creating and applying these mods? How will Steam handle the third-party developer tools that DCS will have? Will Steam let me use the 3rd-party MiG-21 that someone developes using a non-Steam version? Will there be a Steam version of said tools that are not compatable with the hardcopy version? I'm kinda skeptical of this.

Fair enough, I did say it was a preference, didn't I? :harhar: I respect the men and women who do it. The USMC was the only branch of the US military that I ever seriously considered trying to join (that little dream didn't go far, but thats another story. ;) ) When I was a kid, I was obsessed with the PTO in WW2 and all things naval and carrier related. For some reason, it just didn't stick. I ultimately found land-based air power more interesting. If someone told me that in their honest opinion, naval aviators were 10x better pilots than land-based ones, I wouldn't argue. I just don't find it all that interesting. Now, all that MIGHT change in an instant if we get a good modern F-18 sim one of these days. :music_whistling:

Are you referring to GW2? I think so, so point taken. I just used TOW as an example since the Javelin wasn't in service during the time when masses of T-80 tanks were a real threat. :)

You're right about the disparity in range, but I think all of that is moot if you can't even hit the IFVs at all! Yeah they'd be stopped to let infantry out, and be shooting javelins in self defence. Now imagine how much it would suck if your MBT gun can't even hit that Bradley while it can zap you with impunity! I wouldn't want to even try anything other than sabot on an Abrams. A Songster would just be a total waste.

Point taken. They didn't take a hand-me-down in that case. All that is fine and good, but what if you have to deal a counter attack? I know for certain that there are missions and contingencies that the USMC was and still is prepared for that would pit an expeditionary force of AAVs and Abrams vs. a much more heavily armed and numerous opponent. In that scenario, its nice to have AT weapons on your personnel carriers. As it is, they'd be a speed bump relying on TOWs, mortors, and LAWs to get the job done. The AAV was intended to carry Marines farther inland than just a beach head. Plus, didn't AAVs do a lot of "holding ground" in GW2? Russian tanks like the T-80 were designed to fire AT missiles to counter the threat of things like M2s armed with AT missiles. The fear wasn't that IFVs would go around hunting tanks, it was just the fear that a good AT missile could out-range a tank's main gun and have a better PK at range.

Funny how it was built for economy but ended up being anything but. Its still inexpensive and relatively cheap to maintain but I hesitate to call it "economy". Its a "jack of all trades" that just happens to be able to do a couple of those trades about as good as any other platform. Bean counters? If by counting beans you mean making people more accountable, then so be it. I don't totally agree with them, but if only a quarter of the crap I've heard about how equipment was procured back then is true, it was nothing but one big General Officer and Defense industry circle jerk. I can't speak for the actual reliability. I don't have any idea. But why compare the F-18E? Comparing the A or C would be more meaningful. To be honest, I am not without bias when it comes to carrier-launched aircraft. I've never really liked them. My view of the USN fighter and attack aircraft situation has always reminded me of the USMC situation; personnel who are just as, if not more, skilled than their Army and Airforce counterparts but are forced to make due with second-round equipment and designs the other guys said "no thanks" to. The respect for the people is there, but the fondness for their "toys" is not, in the case of the USN that is. While I think its awesome that you have Marines still using actual assault rifles (as opposed to carbines) and riding around in these things which don't even have AT missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle While the army gets these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley I don't find carrier-based aviation appealing. Beyond the coolness and "wow" factor of landing a plane on a rolling tennis court, at sea, at night, it just doesn't do it for me. I've always found all the nice things that go along with having an airbase, long-range AWACS, GCI support, more interesting than carrier-based aviation. Its just a preference I guess. :P

Not fair! Not fair! :mad: :D Here's a thought: barring a move to UAVs which will certainly be smaller, why do designers continue to design such large aircraft like the F-22? Do you really need an aircraft that is 60 or 70 feet long to house the hardware that a true air superiority fighter needs? Is all that extra room needed for fuel for staying power? More room for missiles? Does making it large just make it easier to design? It would seem that of all the present-day dedicated air to air planes -- of which there are like what, four in-service designs? (F-15, F-14, F-22, Su-27) -- there's a similar size which everyone agrees upon, and in all honesty, it is huge.

I believe Mr. Bonnani was speaking more to its abilities as a Fighter not a hobbled over-weighted moving target. Although, it does play that role just fine too. ;) Yes, I know you're just messing around. I can respect a bit of friendly thread hijacking. :) At the time of the light-weight fighter competition, the whole question of 1 vs. 2 engines was based on political and export preconceptions. It was thought that potential buyers would be frightened away from a single-engine design so that is one of the factors behind accepting the YF-17 into the running. So the desire for 2 engines was just as money-oriented and politicized as any reason to have one engine! In light of this, do you really wanna go down that road about being "uninspired"? :puke: BTW, there was no doubt which design the Fighter pilots preferred and which design won the competion. ;) I also recall that John Boyd and his ilk had done some sort of analysis of 1 engine vs. 2 and had basically come to the conclusion that 2 engines was statistically no better than 1. I'm over simplifying it here, but I think the general idea was 2 engines had its own set of problems with regards to maintenance and break-downs (in other words, TWICE as likely). My recollection is of this is hazy, so take this with a grain of salt. There may be more to it along the lines of what Pilotasso mentioned.

The main thing you have to question about Steam, other than whole DRM/CP thing, is whether or not BS through Steam could be modded. I don't know the ins and outs of how Steam works, but games seem to be very heavily integrated within it. When you download and install the game, it is 100% done through Steam. It doesn't create a separate folder under program files like a Windows install would. When you decided to uninstall, you're doing so through Steam. The game's data files, from what I can tell, are mostly in the Steam folder. And this is the strange part because it literally takes like half a second to uninstall even a very large game. No progress bar and very little apparent CPU use like you would see uninstalling with Windows. You click on it, select the option to remove, boom, its done. I'm a dummy when it comes to this type of thing, but this just all seems very 3rd-party unfriendly to me.