CE_Mikemonster

Out of interest, what exactly are people hoping to be able to acheive flying a Ka-50 in the same server as an A-10? On opposing sides it seems a bit pointless. And as a co-op, well.. What would you gain from being one the same side?

That's true. I'm one for utility choppers because I think it would greatly improve gameplay, not for enjoying the performance. Landing some troops on a roof in a Little Bird would be great. Big choppers (with gunners) would be rubbish to simulate, because I don't think the AI is up to the task of calling the same sort of commands and warnings that aircrew IRL do. (I would love to have a SAR chopper though.. Mmm.. Medevac.. But only with good, realistic AI)

May I just turn up late, and say to check the Asus forums. These cards are like marmite, you either love them or hate them. (i.e. they either work or DON'T). Personally i've tried no other cards, but none of Asus' drivers work correctly for me. At the moment i'm putting up with popping sounds whilst surfing the web (changing pages), so I turn my HiFi off. EAX AFAIK wasn't supported, instead it's more 'emulated'. But I don't play on FPS' enough to test it. I'm sure you wouldn't tell the difference. Just check those forums if you're considering buying. And bear in mind you can't set the speaker distance very well. In my realtek onboard HD Audio I could set that 'time lag' thing to compensate for uneven/unequal speaker distances. Not available in ASUS Audio Centre. Fingers crossed you won't have any issues though. All the best! MM

Based on prior experience, that is almost definately true.

Greets peeps, long time no-see. Personally I would prefer to see the focus of investment for flight sims turn towards the 'feeling' of an integrated battlefield, rather than introduce FPS aspects. There's always a limited amount of time and money; I'm just saying that rather than create a hybrid 'one size fits all' game, I think it would be better to sort out the glaring immersion problems in most flight sims. Then possibly those who want to be 'battlefield commanders' in OFP/ArmA games could enjoy flying co-pilot in an AI recon plane in a DCS type flight sim - commanding AI units as they attack a 'smart' enemy force, perhaps commanded by another player via Multiplayer. It would be great to have an Arma2 Multiplayer experience, with DCS flight models/maps, but everyone would need to be very professional. Possibly this thread could be about a mix between DCS and Steel Beasts.. Now there is something that would be interesting.. # Strokes Chin # (I'm sure it's been discussed to death)

Folland Gnat.

Well I can't wait for our Navy to take delivery and once again be able to defend itself!

Mmm, I had that in mind. Is it mainly loiter times that give the turboprop the advantage over jet?

Oh yeah.. here we go.. blame it on the French

HA-HA-HA

hehehe

Lmfao

Hahahaha Thanks for the pics Ethereal and Topol (in order of appearance ;))

Thankyou thankyou thankyou, i'm here all week gents :)

it was the first 'ridiculous' war involving this plane.

I knew you'd spoil it.

Shame I can't rep myself for that. hahahaha

Super! Yeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nailed that pun ;)

Ouchies. topol do you have any pics with people in to give some sort of scale?

Evil little thing isn't it ('little' - Ha!). We had a discussion about the size of it's rounds and people were getting to the conclusion that it took milk-bottle sized rounds. I saw the A-10 at Fairford and the actual barrel diameter is fairly small (compared to what I'd expected). Go on people flame me and talk about muzzle velocity.. I know it's very powerful (and the gun itself is huge), but the muzzles/barrels look tiny IRL.

Where does the airbase look to be located? I presume that you'd test any secret prototype in the middle of nowhere and there seem to be houses in the background. Also why no afterburner/thrust rings?

Well If I misquoted you then I apologise, seeing as I quoted you word for word. I was merely pointing out your contradictions, which quite obviously don't exist.. If i'm twisting your opinion then my apologies.. I was merely going by what you had written (obviously not what you were thinking, my bad!). I'm sure Afghanistan is a simple war, and we can all make statements that reflect that! For instance The Taliban Are Responsible For Me Missing The Bus This Morning :smartass: Don't twist my words there by saying there's more to it. :helpsmilie: Again, my apologies. I simply had no idea that you felt I was challenging your assumptions. Civilian deaths are a trivial and uninteresting subject anyway, we should all say what we like on the subject. Brief and simple seems best.. With no arkward questions allowed.. Mike:pilotfly:

Well I think it's odd that we can get banned for swearing, but it's ok to candidly post videos of people being dismembered. It's ****ing absurd. I don't think the video is especially graphic, don't get me wrong, but I think it was posted for patriotic reasons and nothing else.

Pwned

I was using it as an example of how indiscriminate deterrents/punishments wouldn't be effective in preventing people commiting the crime of working for the Taliban. It's still a crime and punishment issue despite Afghanistan being a warzone. The same logic still applies from prosecuting drug dealers in the UK to prosecuting people looting two trucks in Afghanistan. (To those who believe this event has deterred other people from cooperating with the Taliban, see what happened when similar tactics were used in Vietnam). So you say the Taliban are 'entirely' responsible for the civilian deaths. But you don't believe the Coalition are blameless? That's a contradiction straight away. If you justify the bombing, then killing civilians in this number and circumstance is also justified. Therefore you believe they deserved to die. If they didn't deserve to die, the bombing would be unjust, logically. Can you think of any worse way to handle this situation? If anybody wants to say it would be dangerous to send in troops then fair enough, but the bottom line is that civilians were bombed here, apparently en masse.. What do you mean 'a firefight would have yeilded the same results'? Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't think the civilians would have had much of a choice. Unfortunately typical of these sorts of conflict isn't it. It's always the unarmed that pay the price when a situation develops. Surely the Coalition were forced to bomb civilians only by their own doctrine? Nobody was holding a gun to their heads. It is a shame they don't value human life, and I have no doubt that they are vicious murderers. Whether the civilians trapped in the 'battlefield' mentioned are though is debatable. Very debatable. We took responsibility for the security of the Afghan people when we took over 'admin' of the provinces following the invasion. If we can't stop the Taliban putting a gun to their head then who are we to bomb them for complying?