CE_Mikemonster

A terrible thing to happen, but the AGM-130A used is able to retarget in-flight. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-130.htm

Spyda, nobody's going to the extreme, and we've all bought the product - and hence shown 'support'. We've already told them what we like about BS earlier in the thread (it is a great sim), and this is pretty much the only criticism (apart from speed trees) that ED have to listen to. I'm glad you're showing so much empathy but possibly that post has not really helped anyone at all..

Afghanistan is very much a war and very very conventional (for the infantry lads fighting it out) but the enemy doesn't have armour or air support (mortars, automatic fire and recoiless rifles yes). I think it's basically target ID, you really need a good solid pair of eyes (or a targeting pod with a person looking out of the canopy as well). No point risking a blue on blue if the enemy doesn't have BVR weapons anyway - I'd like to show myself if I was in an Apache, Harrier or Tornado and let them know they're in for it. I believe the Apaches get really close, but haven't read anything specific. Laser guidance allows Brimstone to be guided directly by an FAC as well I suppose, or possibly a lower threat UAV? - but it does have the IR seeker in case a tank column happens to pop up all of a sudden like in Rambo. I think as for diverting weapons, you'd only fire them if you were 100% certain in the first place. Does anyone know how many times targets were engaged after being pinpointed by the radar in The Second Gulf War?

Hehe diveplane, I bought ETS as soon as it came out. Some amazing mods, it's a modders dream in terms of creating new models. I'm loving the real truck logos :)

I know that ED are working on the AI and it's going to have a complete overhaul in the future, but saying 'were working on it' isn't the same as saying that it needs work to bring it up to par with the simulation aspect of the game. Edit: My previous post was a confusing one, some of the context was bad (sorry about that, and for any unintentional annoyance). What I was trying to say was pretty much what I said above. ED have stated numerous times that they're working on the AI, as with most aspects of the game.

WOW! Similar thing here :huh: Edit: [F-16 again] Mad thread topic lol Seems to be quite a few of the pilots showing off to the lads in Afghanistan (Hahahaha)

Ouchies! Loved the black smoke on takeoff, just like the real thing. why on earth would you fly your pride and joy on such a windy day lol.. I got an RC Chinook for Christmas from the gf, might give it a go when it stops raining :)

I would have just got the fire hoses on the go like at a riot. Can a ship pop-smoke?

You have as much pressure in either circumstance I suppose, in either one if you mess up you're dead :(

Well said MBot, I wish I could have summed it up exactly as you just did. @ Fuerfalke This is all coming back to the same old argument that basically ends up being 'ED produced BS to demonstrate an ability to the military to produce rotor-wing simulations.' I don't think it's that simple at all, and I very much respect ED for releasing BS. I enjoy the sim, but it's obvious that the main-effort was to produce the Ka-50, not the 'world' it lives in (and rightly so). I'm not saying a huge amount of effort didn't go into the AI, i'm sure it did, but nobody could deny that the priority was a fully working virtual Ka-50. With this in mind, community gripes regarding the missions should have been anticipated by ED, and either a solution given or a straightforward explanation given. I don't think anybody here would have not bought the sim if ED had said 'priority has been given to simulating the Ka-50, AI is still very much WIP.' As a matter of fact I think a lot more people would be 'on side' about it and willing to help. Tharos, you're not wrong in what you're saying at all, but it could be argued that you're having the same issue again and again (defending this corner) because nobody came clean and just said "we're working on it'." All i'm doing here is trying to get to the point, it would have happened anyway over the next few pages. I fully respect all involved.

I've never had a repetitive campaign in Falcon, i've had the same stages of the campaign, but not ever had to fly the exact same mission twice like in Black Shark. If the campaign was ever hollow maybe play with force levels, you'll get jumped by fighers without expecting it, or SAMs will only light up once you're in their envelope and ambush you. I like to play in a sim where the next mission can be a direct result of your prior one, and you can't just 'Fly Again' a failed mission knowing the enemy force levels and positions. I'm just levelling up the field here with reg. to a DC, no offense intended. Hijacking BARCAP's is repetitive, I will admit :doh:

x2, that would be brilliant Snoopy

I'd be happy if someone reviewed me and gave me an 82% decent guy score! Some of the personal user reviews are less than that, and it doesn't mean they're wrong! As for having a steep learning curve and a thick manual, maybe that'll attract the simmers who've read it, who knooows? Dynamic campaign can be debated (lol jk, don't pick on me!). Edit: 'Dense' manual? You're right the review is silly, he didn't mention collidable trees and missile spam!

Oooooooo Crap Thanks for the heads up Acedy. Interesting to see the alleged use of FF forums to kick RV.

Hahaha haven't heard that exact thing before, but when i've landed on my wingman's original pad at a FARP he's hovered instead of landing on the other one. I've had him do an evasive manouvre into me too, beautiful. ED are working on AI in the upcoming patch, just try to grin and bear it 'til then. Ground (vehicle) AI too hopefully. There are a few threads on here relating to AI issues, any more probs might be worth adding to them. Only thing is it wasn't dumb ground AI in either case was it, it was friendly air? Good to see another UK flyer on here!

Some of you may have seen this, it's a flying scale replica of the Flanker. I'm left speechless by the amount of time, effort and professional workmanship that's gone into it! The makers name is Harald Huf, and he is an incredible man, I think you'll all agree!( http://www.su27.de/meineperson.htm) http://www.su27.de/seite1.htm The wooden frame that you see (eventually coated with individually cut, shaped and marked aluminium panels) is only a mould for a later composite shell! Video demonstrating the hydraulics: http://www.su27.de/Fahrwerkclip.avi First 'rollout' (real eye-opener) http://www.su27.de/seite73.htm You'll all love the colour scheme that follows in the next few pages (76-79). 'Finished' [my words] product: http://www.su27.de/jetpower2007.htm Flight video (skip to 3.30 if you can't wait to hear it's engines! 4.05 is takeoff.) http://harald.phpb002.de/SU27_maiden_clip1.wmv If this isn't the appropriate place to post i'm sorry, please delete. Thought some fans of the aircraft would enjoy the flight video/attention to detail.

Hello, i've done a lot of searching but haven't really found anything regarding this. Is it possible to create battle positions and earthworks for troops, such as a comouflaged 'hide'? I know that the terrain can't be 'excavated' but is a hull-down tank possible by taking the M1A2 for instance and 'chopping off' the hull? I'm aware that the infantry are given a damage model to simulate being dug in, but instead of simply seeing a representation of the soldier standing/kneeling, is it possible to model the soldier's head/sholders poking up above ground level, surrounded by sandbags? I'm only asking for information and to see if it was possible, just thought it was quite interesting. Regards! MM

As far as I was aware.. opposing fighters take off and operate in the same operating conditions. So any NATO aircraft must therefore be just as capable as a rival Russian aircraft in an extreme theatre of operations. If NATO accomplish this by means of a more complex and expensive infrastructure for their airforces then it must be seen as an advantage of prior strategic planning. If Russia's aircraft do require less attention prior to launching sorties it will come as a compromise - technology, performance, or mission effectiveness will have been sacrificed.

hehehe

Can't you use a Debit Card? I used mine to purchase the sim :)

Interesting if it's a flat terrain I suppose, esp. against hull-down tanks. Edit: What are the eyes on the T-90?

I'm afraid the argument doesn't really make sense - that a naval fighter, because it can survive multiple hard landings is more reliable and manouver harder (pull more G). Are you suggesting that to make an aircraft more manouverable you add weight and bolster up the airframe? If you happen to pull the max-stated airframe G you're already in trouble. As well as this I notice that Russian aircraft are also more reliable and can apparently sustain more damage (implied), because they can operate from roads as well as runways (in a limited capacity - where do the airport facilities appear from?). The idea to have planes operating from remote roads etc was only there in order to have an air force after the huge air-bases had been nuked. Exactly the same as having a nuclear sub that is available to retaliate following the destructon of the home country. Saab Viggens can operate from frozen roads - does this give them a combat advantage over a plane that can only use runways? Seeing as air combat doesn't work on a 'hitpoint' system, words like 'rugged' do not make any sense - it's just romanticism. What about that F-15 that landed with only half a wing? Or the A-10 that came home missing an engine? Please can we get back on topic, I was quite interested in it.

Nooooo the Sea Harrier FA2! Single seat, Look down/Shoot down radar, AMRAAMs (ripple fireable), Sidewinders, LGB's, VTOL (and VIFFing!), Carrier Ops, Anti-Ship missions.. Go on, shoot me down lol The hind would be good fun for a few missions, but don't you think a bit stale compared to the KA-50?

How many F-22's will stay in the USA for home-defense, and how many will be stationed abroad? For instance.. If you need to apply pressure to Iran, what would the reaction be to 100 F-22's available to launch 24/7 CAP's? The F-22 is undoubtedly the most advanced fighter in the world, with the greatest air-supremacy performance ever. A weapon such as that is an even greater political tool. That's what you can base the budget on I suppose. Political pressure.

Even when you're refuelling how do you 'miss' 500 tonnes of oil? Hmmm... EDIT: What data, apart from accident logs, can there be? E-mail would do the trick. It's instant as well. Obviously it can't be that simple though.. There are procedures..