Rick50

I "kinda" was too young for Somewhere in Time as well, but I had the cash, I knew the concert was on, had time off, and debated for probably half an hour, decided not to go... 5 minutes later I got on the bus to go to the show! bought scalper ticket at a very reasonable price (basically normal price of the time, he was worried having not sold the ticket when the concert started opening act!), and had a great time! As for the other revenue ideas, I'm liking them! Well, don't expect me to buy a Christmas sweater though...

Recently, due to comments made by a 3rd party developer who confided in us that they have been hit VERY hard by the real war in Ukraine, it suddenly dawned on me that I didn't know for sure if maybe ED could be affected by sanctions and banking restrictions on Russians... ... and by pure chance, I heard the answer: So Eagle Dynamics is no longer Russian company, but Swiss registered international ??? According to Wags, yes! He says so early on during this podcast: Air Combat Sim Podcast #25 So apparently they have employees all over the world, many still in Russia obviously! Also, the Apache has been worked on seriously for about 2 years now, a year before it was announced, the speed of dev is now much greater thanks to having entire teams instead of single coders working on this part or that.

Bruce recently visited Alberta and got to fly a Buffalo Air DC-3 from Edmonton to Calgary! Mikey and his dad came for the flight! Buffalo has a maintenance/overhaul and build hangars located in Red Deer, which is halfway between the two cities. I only got to see Iron Maiden once, in the 1980s for the Somewhere in Time tour, my first metal concert, awesome!!

Just saw this historical artifact:

Aces High, ok now you have my attention!! Maybe even add one of those electronic sound doodads from fancy birthday cards that has the song on it!

Well, considering that "journalism" has for the most part flushed itself down the drain... then blogging it is!

Well, let's help them out!! What would you like to see and buy?

Good thread idea, OP!!

Ok, subscription is unpopular. But people are concerned about the profitabiliity of ED. They want to contribute in some way. Then how about buying some high-profit low-effort merchandise? https://merch.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ No one's becoming a millionaire with merch, but it's an area that's almost like donating directly to the company, and you get a shirt or hoodie to wear for the next airshow! Hmm... looks like they'll need an Apache hoodie and tshirt for sale! And Hind... (by "low effort" meaning designing their merch isn't being done by the people making modules so those and DCS World aren't affected)

Oh wow... I thought the crewman who took a round to the neck had died, but rather got medevaced and RTU'ed within weeks! Well good for him! Still, regardless, the whole event shows that the Apache, as good as it definitely is, is not Superman bulletproof, it IS vulnerable, just LESS vulnerable than most other helicopters. One point of order however: "7.62" can mean different power levels. Normally not a concern for fast movers, but for slow and low helos, it might make a difference, if we consider the difference in ballistics between the bog-standard AKM "Russian short", compared to say the PKM "Russian long" (also seen in PK's, Dragunov SVD's and so on). The bullets are heavier and driven faster, giving a heavier punch. Now... my gut feeling is that a single turret PK knocking out both your engines in a single burst seems... unlikely, in the grand scheme of things. But I'm very much not aware of what protections there might be for the two turbines there. And if you were heading straight towards it, appearing as a nearly stationary target... a gunner with a lucky burst might get lucky. So unlikely but plausibly possible in rare instances, possibly this one. Is there another AH that is known to have thicker/stronger armor, or better armor coverage, than the Apache? I'm kinda not sure if the Hind approaches the Apache in some respects, or maybe even surpasses in one way? Honestly I don't know about engine armor on Apache. And agreed on the second point.

Well fair enough. I was just pointing out a known downside to subscription. That we might be no better off after a shutdown is maybe slightly off topic perhaps, but thanks for posting.

suppose, perish the thought, ED goes through hard times. For whatever reason, the company ceases operations. Maybe financial, maybe a loss of customer interest, maybe a govt direct order. With the current model... customers can't buy new products, but they can theoretically continue using their already purchased modules, theoretically indefinately. They "own" their modules. On a subscription... company shuts down, so does your modules, never to fly the DCS skies again. Just like many previous "online only" games. On a subscription, it would still check even if you wanted to fly single player, and without a response wouldn't fire up. Be careful what you wish for, there's usually unintended consequences that come with wishes.

Is this new model better for customers? Is this model better for giant AAA game publishers? Is this model better for niche products like high complexity combat flight sims? Edit: is ED big enough for a subscription model to work well for both ED and it's customers? I doubt it. We want very complex very high quality... that sells in very low volume (relative to AAA publishers), no matter what the model is, we'll be paying a lot for it. Netflix WAS successful. How they doing now? How many subscribers have they been losing the last couple years? How have their new pricing increases and policy changes affected value for customers? Sorry, but your assertion that subscription can ONLY lead to better things, is shortsighted. I'm not saying it's guaranteed the wrong direction... but your rosy prediction is NOT actually certain at all. So here you admit that you aren't certain the money would be better, hoping it would be. I agree: i don't think it's certain either! You suggest that the extra income, if it comes, could help fix long term issues with DCS. I disagree. I don't think it's a question of cash availability. I think it's more about availability of good coders. There's probably a very tiny global community of coders who can produce well in something like a flight or combat simulator. Managers choosing what projects those coders are actually working on, is the issue. Maybe they need to take a pause between modules, to spend a month just working on DCS World? I dunno. But I don't think subscription it the holy grail solution! Bottom line: you are making assumptions that might not be true, or might not result in the goal you and I wish for.

So on the subject of retiring airframes... they're gonna keep the B-52 going for another long while by soon doing an engine upgrade, and they'll pay for that and more by retiring the awesome but very maintenance costly B-1B Bone. I think it's a shame to ditch that graceful aircraft, but I can also see that B-52's are cheaper to keep for non-stealth standoff, and B-2's and B-21's are FAR more stealthy than the B-1B could ever be.

Um, no. The Apache is NOT able to withstand 23mm hits anywhere on the helo. There are a couple of critical items that are supposed to take a 23mm hit, but just a couple. Yes there is a bit of armor. But it's not a flying tank, at least in terms of armor. Bignewy mentioned the documentary "Apache Warrior", you should watch it. One crewmember got hit by smallarms fire (AKM ?) and bled out before they could save him. Many others were also bleeding but survived to tell the tale. Every Apache on that flight was significantly damaged and had to undergo significant repairs before the unit was available again... from ONE SORTIE. Armor in helos does not make them invulnerable, it just gives the crew a CHANCE to get away to safety.

No no, this is realistic. This simulates PTSD shock after a close call !!!

Wow this is cool!!!

For instance, the Leopard 2 was sold throughout Europe, from the Nordic countries to Greece, but in recent years includes Turkish units in Syria, and Canada too, so there should be an English manual (though Canadian manuals don't show up all that often on the net). See, Canada was still using Leo1's even up to the mid-2000's, and we brought a few to Afghanistan for infantry fire support as a tactical experiment. The experiment was both a big failure and huge success: by this time these Leo1 old tanks were way past the end of their service life, they were breaking down and overheating fiercely, and the crews were super fatigued due to the insane heat (Leo1's were never designed for desert or hot countries, but rather for cental Europe). But on the other hand, the fire support provided was outstanding, accurate, powerful enough to do the job but not so much that you were worried all the time about civilian casualties because the boom was too big. So the Canadian Army started looking for a quick purchase of a newer better tank. And before you could say "we've got nice used ones on sale!" we had many options on lightly used Leo2's from several nations, German Army and others. We bought 20 in one config from German Army and had them flown by Antonov to Afghanistan as soon as able, with radio upgrades, belly armor for IED's, and the air conditioning coolers were either upgraded or doubled for the high heat. This second test just went operational and our Army just decided to buy a whole complement of Leo2's, the majority of which I think came from Netherlands after a few little upgrades. Last year I saw one in Edmonton! Truly impressive tank... though Canada was seriously late to the party on that one, but we bought top quality for used car prices, so it's hard to complain!

Well yes and no. Google searching for Leopard 2 operator handbook, and some variations of that. You may or may not find anything. American equipment is usually available, though not always strictly "legal", owing to regulations and such. But it's not unusual to find Apache, Hornet, Hercules and other manuals. Keep in mind, the handbook won't nessisarily include secret details... it might but might not. It's meant for an experienced operator to get familiar with the new complex equipment, not a novice who's just starting out. If you have a second or third language, do searches in those languages too, you might find manuals in those languages, especially for the European-wide use of the Leopard2 series of tanks!

Nice!!

Neither. Look up the actual user manuals for the Leo2, and note which variant it is, the newer ones have extra belly armor bolt-on to protect from stacked minestrikes and IED's.

Reminds me of the A-10 being retired. All through the 1990's, all through the 2000's, the USAF kept trying to ditch the Warthog, either in part or completely, with no replacement. See, the USAF just doesn't like spending on the CAS mission. They think the non-stealthy bomb-truck is useless and want no part of it. The small money spent on keeping Warthogs, would be better put to F-35's and Stormbreakers, I guess. Or a single repaint of a B-2 after overhaul. Remember, they've been out of production since 1984, although there was 716 produced and many are upgraded wing boxes to give more airframe hours, along with the C upgrade. Even after proving it's usefulness in 1991 Desert Storm, 2003 Iraq invasion, GWOT, Afghanistan, specops use, calls from allied troops in Afghanistan for quick CAS... EVEN THEN the USAF wanted it gone. In more recent years, the attitude changed, and I'm not sure why. Might have a lot to do with soooo many veterans with direct experience with the A-10 now being civilians who are powerful voters... who'd have a LOT to say if they retired it now. Maybe also the Taiwan and South Korea needs too? Maybe some Eastern Europe nations getting nervous? Anyway, IMO retiring the A-10 shouldn't have even become a serious thought, much less a real budgetary proposal in the first place.

So according to this video, Ukraine intends to rebuild the destroyed 225... AND BUILD A SECOND 225...

um... ok, this has gotten very muddy. the plane was not actually used in Vietnam. So maybe don't bring it up in Vietnam context even if only for time, especially since the Vietnam conflict was actually a really long time, longer if one might include the Indochina war. Then again, Captain did say "up to", I think he's implying "but not during". meaning used used used stop, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Corsair retired? I prefer Cun's post, which mentions the operators, the conflicts themselves and the years active.

Sure, but Vietnam was a :LONG time ago. Modern Fox2 can be launched from the edge of visible distance, FAR outside the range of any 20mm. Fox3 can tripple that and more. Russians took tail guns off he TU-22M3 I think. So really maybe the Tu-95 and IL-76 for a tailgun today... Radar directed tailguns, would be much like the Navy 20mm Phalanx CIWS... and I bet all pilots have been told since the 1947 discovery of the TU-4 to avoid chasing bombers with tailguns. Even in the earlier Cold War, steps were taken to avoid being shot by tail guns... the bomber intercept AAM's Falcon and Genie missiles both had a range of 6 miles (9.7 km), and had nuclear warheads to knock down multiple bombers in a single shot. At least that was the theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon Canada had nuke Genies in service, then in storage in Canada, and then had them removed from CFB Comox in the late 1980's. Also Canada had nuke bombs for our CF-104 Starfighters deployed to Germany, for the nuke strike role on Czech airfields I believe. I don't think these nukes ever came to Canada's territory. At least one Broken Arrow happened over Canada, an American bomber crashed, and required Canadian military ground teams to secure the nuke for removal. For a time we also had the ASROC nuclear tip torpedo system. Today I don't believe Canada has any nuclear weapons of any kind. Nor any nuclear propulsion for our ships or subs. Edit: I looked up the basics for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS Effective firing range 1,625 yd (1,486 m) (max. effective range) Maximum firing range 6,000 yd (5,500 m) now... that's presumably against a narrow missile inbound, so against a fighter we could maybe double that or better, so 3000meters or 4000m ?