RedTiger

I forgot, I have a question, hopefully Wags can answer this in the FAQ update. Will there be any upgrade for the pilot log book functionality, hopefully to work more like DCS?

Eagle Dynamics, the only legit game in town! Looking forwards to the pics!

If I were rich, I would approach UBI and convince them to sell me the rights to Lock On ("flight sims? Nah, nobody cares about those. You sell me the rights and use my money to go make another Ghost Recon game." ;) ). Then I would give the rights to Lock On to ED as promptly as possible. An American buying a game from a French company and then handing it over to a Russian one? It'd be an international legal adventure! Who wants to start a PayPal donation? :D Put me down for one DLC copy and one disc, Wags!

I re-read the feature list: Yay! Full shadows will work! This should mean better performance on modern GPUs, right? There's nothing I like better than crafting a good mission. Now they'll actually be replayable! Yay! Fun with rockets! :devil_2: Not sure what this means, but I'm hoping it means either less or entirely no scripted high-alpha behavior. Improved *anything* is fine by me though! :D No more Mr. Pencil Neck! No comment needed here, this probably the most complained about thing. I have high hopes for this one. Anything more realistic than the on/off scrambled radar scope with guaranteed HOJ thing we have now would be an improvement! :) Can't wait! :bounce:

*Starts running around fanning himself* OMG! OMG! OMG! Increadible! Increadibly good news!

You might be able to call that the "800 pound gorilla in the room" around here, but that would imply that it is being avoided and should be addressed somehow. I'm don't really think it needs to be. Maybe I (and you too) are the only ones who have taken the time to realize how odd this is in hindsight. Its enough to say that it is certainly bizarre but wonderful at the same time. :)

IMO, Valve is like the canary in the mine for PC gaming. Keep an eye on them. They already make stuff for consoles too. If you see a decline in Steam in any way, or a move to make it available via Xbox Live...time to buy a console! Nvidia is another good one. Pay attention to their graphics cards. Marketing more and more towards graphical design, less and less to gamers? Console here we come!

No interest in ArmA, never played the original OfP and I'm waiting for the demo for the second one. I guess I wasn't expecting a whole pile of suck out of MW2. The first one seemed ok to me as-is.

LMFAO :megalol: Come on! He might as well have really said that! Reading the rest of that Q&A, I can see why there's so much uproar. I don't mind people not being able to tweak the game. I happen to like it when everyone has to play by the same mechanics unless its some huge community-wide understanding that it is better to include/exclude some feature, which is rare. The big killer for me....65 degree FOV!? What am I, a mole!? 70 degrees is bad enough. 65 sucks. Why is the FOV so small on the consoles? Don't they practically require an HD TV which without exception, is WIDE SCREEN?

Can anyone confirm if the blasted infintite respawning enemies are still in MW2? I hated that about the first one. It made playing the campaign on anything other than the medium difficulty just completely unfun. The dedicated server change doesn't bother me a bit. Yet again the vocal minority screams bloody murder. Dedicated servers might be great for the hardcore clans and such, however if you just want to play a game here and there against other players and don't care for all that, match making is an improvement. MW2 is total run and gun anyway. EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand the lament for the loss of a dedicated server list. This has been a staple in FPS for years. However, the way MW2 does it will at worst be no different for me and at best an improvement. Plus, sorry if no one likes this, but this is THE way multiplayer will be done in the future on all but the niche titles. Servers professionally with chat lobby/matchmaking. Its already happened and FPS won't be any different.

If it isn't too late to bump this thread... AFAIK, per ED, the main thing that will determine any developement of a dynamic campaign is whether or not any military clients want this. From what we have been told, what militaries want is missions and a mission editor, so that is what they are getting. When you train pilots, you have certain goals and objectives in mind you want to cover. Making sure you cover this requires carefully hand-crafted missions. This is the type of play I personally prefer, so I admit I am biased. I have played the Falcon 4 campaign. Putting aside the existing flaws that are just due to age and taking it only for what it is, it is a great deal of fun. I would hesitate before calling it "realistic", however. It just so happens that he particular unrealisms in Falcon are the specific things that would probably turn me off from any flight sim.

Reminds me of a King Tiger with zimmerit. Pretty neat!

Wow, that seemed quick. I thought you were going to be gone for much longer. Welcome back! I don't think you really missed very much, if anything.

Cougar's are nice and sturdy, but can you really call them "military grade"?

I'm surprised that no one mentioned this thing. That's pretty cool. I guess I always imagined a soldier or special forces with actual boots on the ground lasing the target. I never thought about mounting it to an APC!!!

I doubt that very seriously. People tend to over-emphasize the relationship between multiplayer and popularity. For everyone one guy in a clan/guild/squad, there's 10 who play offline or just bought the game because the box looked cool. I cite this now and wil continue to cite this -- when Unreal Tournment added the ability to set up a user ID to track player stats via a login to a server the developers discovered something they didn't expect; the majority of people were playing against AI bots and never set foot in a game vs. real people. Every UT since has had a single player campaign mode. I could be way off since DCS is not UT, but this relationship makes enough sense where I'm willing to bet its the same with *any* such sim/game that also has multiplayer.

D:

Man...not this again. :O

Is DCS: BS the LOMAC killer? No, but DCS in general most certainly will be eventually. Black Shark is a masterpiece, but I cannot maintain my interest in it. I'm glad I bought it just so I could experience it and support ED, but helicopters have never been interesting to me. I sometimes struggle keeping interest in planes that are 100% A/G, let alone a helicopter. I'm afraid that DCS: Hog will be the same way for me. It would be one thing if these sims were easy and quick to pick up, but they're not. We're simulating what real pilots take months and years to learn and perfect as 30 to 40 year career. My bet is that every bit of time spent on the difficulty of flying the Ka-50 will have its counterpart in the complexity of the A-10C's avionics. I can sit down and learn a real-as-dirt study sim if I apply myself, but I'm finding the prospect of doing this less and less interesting if I'm not really attached to the aircraft I'm flying. I'd do it for an F-15, Su-27, or a MiG-29, probably an F-16...but not much else. I'm stretched thin these days, especially since I've rediscovered being a musician, and I haven't even played LOMAC in quite some time.

I like it. It appears that you can get A-10C-ish counter insurgency in a much cheaper, less demanding aircraft, with some drawbacks of course. It gives a developing country the potential to have some precision CAS, which saves lives and money. Fighting building to building alone vs. having an armed, FLIR-equpped eye in the sky to back you up is nice advantage.

How about we put you in an attack helicopter and give you the choice of using a stand-off weapon and remaining alive vs. going in up close and personal with a different weapon and greatly increasing your chances of being shot down and tortured to death? Kalashnikovs? Try RPGs, Dshks, possibly worse. Untrained soldiers? Its the will to fight that makes you dangerous, not the ability. For being so ineffective, they are causing everyone a lot of trouble. You're somehow making the assumption that killing those guys was primarily to defend themsevles when it is much more likely to support groud troops. You may not be afraid of rifle bullets, but Private Ryan sure as hell is. Not to mention mortors and just about every other nasty weapon meant to KILL people, which is not "cool", right? *IF* you survive, we'll see how quick you are to quote the costs of a missile. What's worth more to you, your life, the life of the ground troops you support or several thousand dollars? Speaking as a US tax payer -- they can by all means fire as many as they need to get the job done. If you want to argue about the cost of an entire military operation and its validity, that's one thing. Counting the beans once the shooting starts? Only if you're willing to be the one getting shot at, IMO. ;) BTW, someone needs to read Ed Macy's book. IIRC, if they didn't use the missiles it eventually cost time and money anyway to ship them back after so many captive carries. Its the same with any missile. If you have them, use them!

DAS: Getting to blow-through at the merge, keeping track of the bandit like you've got labels on AND getting an aimed missile shot as you escape? REALLY!?!? :shocking: Un-#$@*ing-believable.

Tanks are a very capable and useful part of a defensive ground position, seeing as how it is the JDF and part of that would be defending the islands from an amphibious invasion. Rommel thought they'd be useful in coastal defense. :dunno: Ceteris paribus, of course. :D

Yeah, that's badass. There were mower patters too. I bet it can count blades of grass too, but that's a classified mode. ;) That HMDS is nuts. If things keep going this way, the next iteration will be this: http://webhome.idirect.com/~shipman/3rdMEU/SA-43Hammerhead.html :)

Did I state this? Care to quote me? Read what I bolded from his post, read my response and it should be clear as to why MiG-29 avionics were mentioned. ;)