Jump to content

msalama

Members
  • Posts

    4882
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by msalama

  1. I beg to differ. A coherent and fully modelled era / theatre, a dynamic campaign and some more flyables and they will come. And if the instant ace brigade wants to dumb this down, hell, just ignore them ;)

  2. those WW2 fighters had fly-by-wire controls with auto-trim!

     

    All the more reason for ED to step up their WW2 development. More theatre- and period-accurate ground units, more AI aircraft and more overall coherence is what we need.

     

    We're getting the Mossie and the Jug, and Mag 3 is doing the Corsair. All excellent additions to the base game - and all good AC for us groundpounders - but the overall development is still too disjointed to lure the masses away from all these lesser offerings with wooden FMs and all that "startup checklist: press I" nonsense. Coherence, ladies and gentlemen, more coherence, and they'll come in droves!

  3. So we are paying money for a carrier? This really sounds silly.

     

    Yes, we are, and no, it doesn't. Rather, what really does sound daft is to expect to get it for free, since making the bugger is a carpload of work. So may I courteously suggest you not buy it?

  4. you already need 2 levers to operate the Merlins

     

    Nope.

     

    A HOTAS lever controls the throttle as IRL and 2 JS buttons control RPM up and down. So with the Mossie, just bind both throttles to a lever and use modifier buttons to control each engine separately when necessary. And likewise with the revs, i.e. the buttons control both by default, and each one separately when an additional modifier button is pressed and held.

     

    This is how I do it, and by and large, it works great.

  5. never seems to be anybody flying in the WW2 "jump in" servers

     

    The WW2 subgame needs fleshing out. We need additional ground units and study-level human-pilotable attack aircraft. Mere furballing gets boring after a while.

  6. An excellent ground attack platform and more than capable of A-to-A as well, provided that you know what you're doing and fly to its strengths. "Neutered" and "better in all regimes"? Completely untrue in DCS and RL both. We don't have the high-boost version and some think WEP breaks the engine too easily, but that may just be mismanagement since I've seen lots of folks grossly mishandling the bird doing no warmups before takeoff, etcetera. So I'm of the opinion that it's actually pretty good, although this comes from someone who's primarily a groundpounder with no recent A-to-A activity. So YMMV...

  7. Yes, there may be biases, and yes, the L-39 is potentially vulnerable because it's slow and unarmored.

     

    Still, Wikipedia claims that "according to Reuters, by 2014 the L-39 had allegedly become one of the favoured platforms of the Syrian Air Force for performing ground attack missions due to its slower speed and higher agility over other aircraft in its inventory." So do those guys have a deathwish or something? Hardly. The circumstances there must make the Albie survivable enough, or they would've all been shot down by 2014 and anecdotes like the above wouldn't exist. So I don't know, maybe the SAF generals, hmmm, structure their missions seriously and are thus able to put their L-39 inventory to good use? ;)

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros#Syria

  8. you will find that

     

    I, of course, know this. The thing is, if you want to actually enjoy those missions, you'll either have to A) limit yourself to hostile APCs, infantry & non-radar AAA only or B) use some common sense by preventing those Albies / F-5s / what have you from striking their target before the big boys have taken out the stuff they can't handle.

     

    Real life however? As it comes to Syria, I've heard stories of SAF pilots actually liking their Albies, because they're quite manouverable and the loiter time is good. But strangely enough no-one mentions MANPADs - well either because the insurgents don't have them, or, I don't know, maybe because the SAF has retrofitted their entire fleet with flare throwers or something. But in either case, all publicly available documents just state that "a number of AC have been shot down" without disclosing any loss rates that I've seen at least.

     

    Still, those guys must base their fondness for the bird on something tangible. Just wonder what that is?

     

    PS. I realize I'm drifting kind of off topic here. My apologies ;)

  9. seriously structured missions

     

    Depends on what you mean by "seriously structured". The L-39ZA, for example, is an excellent light CAS/COIN platform and has been used as such in numerous RL conflicts. And I don't think missions and/or servers concentrating on those kind of scenarios are less "seriously structured" than any 'big war' stuff I've seen so far.

×
×
  • Create New...