Jump to content

Flying in the mountains in FC3 - is it wack?


vicx

Recommended Posts

In any kind of sim, we all have the luxury of not taking it as seriously as we could or "should".

Even when I was newer to the game way back, I knew that all the really "realistic" gameplay would come from squadrons of people who are all looking for it, but when it comes to phoenix server, people just hop in takeoff and get into the fray.

 

Also it's sort of everyone just wanting combat and kills, when I first played online on phoenix I flew in a more reasonable manner I suppose, higher altitude. But after getting killed by a couple spamraams from f-15s peaking over mountains firing off one or two actives then using terrain for cover I eventually joined in the mountain dog fighting.

Mind you not everyone does this, there are plenty of people flying at high altitude (And usually in a squadron, who woulda thunk it?) That will go around hunting ground strikers or anything that gets in their way.

 

Personally I don't mind the mountain flying, it gets a bit old I suppose, but for servers that absolutely anyone of any skill level can hop on and fight, it's kinda expected that mountainous flying is from the birth of gamer intuition. (Or incompetence possibly?)

 

It also evens out the playing field for aircraft that suffer more in BVR compared to the eagle. (For now)

Why F-15s even go mountain flying is beyond me, close range is su-27 territory, although personally I like to see if I can outmaneuver something that is much more agile than I.

 

But funnily enough real "turn fight" dog fighting in mountains is pretty rare, it's usually the pilot whoever has the greatest awareness, meeting the pilot who is unaware, and then the aware pilot proceeds to fire a heater up their butt. To be fair though, mountain fighting is pretty unpredictable and intense seeing as enemies can pop up from anywhere from any direction and you'll have to visually identify them before they kill you. It's almost like combat in that area is sort of RNG.

The problem highlighted is not to do with using terrain and flying in the valleys, this is a pretty fair tactic, but the next level of that where you can fly through trees over hill tops and scrape through the valley under 10m is the OPs concern.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem highlighted is not to do with using terrain and flying in the valleys, this is a pretty fair tactic, but the next level of that where you can fly through trees over hill tops and scrape through the valley under 10m is the OPs concern.

 

Well.. That's universal for all DCS modules. I do hate when people fly through trees, total immersion breaker there. But even when we get tree physics people will be damned if they don't set them on fire with their afterburners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, towards the end of the cold war there was an RAF squadron who flew F-4's in Germany whose sole task was air superiority between 0 and 250 feet altitude...

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem highlighted is not to do with using terrain and flying in the valleys, this is a pretty fair tactic, but the next level of that where you can fly through trees over hill tops and scrape through the valley under 10m is the OPs concern.

 

The lack of tree collision was an... odd design choice to begin with. Even the original IL-2 had tree collisions modeled. (although in that case you would often collide into invisible trees because they were just comprised of horizontally leveled textures, thus invisible from the side :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem highlighted is not to do with using terrain and flying in the valleys, this is a pretty fair tactic, but the next level of that where you can fly through trees over hill tops and scrape through the valley under 10m is the OPs concern.

 

Yes this was my main question but I liked all the comments in this thread.

 

I think that it is the lack of risk to get the reward that is the problem I have with the extreme low flying in DCS. Flying low through mountains the risk should multiply as you get lower. Elements are only partially in your control. The main problem is with the geometry. At some point the geometry becomes predictable and is easy to fly very low. This is why in DCS at the moment there is no difference in risk to flying at 100m or flying at 5m.

 

Here I will I present a crazy idea. I would not be against an RNG feature that throws up trees, rock outcrops and geological features in front of you when you are below 100m - even thought it might not be perfect simulation. I have a theory that when the simulation does not challenge us sufficiently, this is when we need the RNG to be the stick, so that people aren't chasing carrots all the time. Carrot vs Stick.


Edited by vicx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why in DCS at the moment there is no difference in risk to flying at 100m or flying at 5m.

 

[/url].

 

Post a track where you fly through a mountain range with a modern fighter jet while constantly staying at 5m or less above ground, and I will believe this :P Litter the area with Sa-15s for extra motivation to stay low :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point - I have exaggerated. Still your second point is spot on. We fall back on mission design as a tool because it's the only one we have to change the sim.

 

Mission designers put a lot of SAM in a mission not for realism but mostly to change the behaviours of online players. It is probably the right thing to do for online PVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point - I have exaggerated. Still your second point is spot on. We fall back on mission design as a tool because it's the only one we have to change the sim.

 

Mission designers put a lot of SAM in a mission not for realism but mostly to change the behaviours of online players. It is probably the right thing to do for online PVP.

 

Hehe i admit I am guilty for inducing such changes :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if the 104th crew would litter the mountains with MANPADs, we wouldn´t have this problem, now would we?

 

But the server culture in DCS is very different. I see the 104th as the game server, something where the rules aren´t as tight, the missions aren´t as complex and the community just comes together and exchanges ammunition. The inclusion of all available machines is a dead giveaway.

 

And yes, the leading cause of death is INS guided Slammer to the face. It is infuriating the level of technological difference we have to bear, the 27ER atleast had a range advantage.

 

But that´s neither here nor there.

 

I find that as the numbers of DCS level modules increase and they actually are combat worthy planes, not friggin trainers, the nature of missions will change.

The 104th will see both sides drowning in F15s (for the newbs), F14s and F18s, Amraams(and pheonixes XD) going every which way, and the COOP servers will be able to create more dedicated missions of NATO vs. PACT AI.

 

Sure, compstomping might sound boring to you as a true dogfight can only be archieved by human vs. human.

But unless we get some proper modules on the OPFOR side we can´t have a realistic, balanced mission. The only setting we can have proper dogfighting in right now is Korea, with both the Sabre and the MiG-15 available, but the rest of the sim doesn´t provide era specific units and assets to play around with, thus making mission design very limited.

 

 

All in all, the current nature of DCS combat lies in the simple fact that availability of modules is low...we only have one dedicated fighter module out right now, one dedicated ground attack plane (and they are decades apart)...and even in the near future, the plane advantage will go towards NATO craft.

 

But since DCS is a Sandbox, I rather enjoy flying COOP missions, like Doctors Operation Pinholes. Random fighter spawn in the black edition (mig-15, Sabre,Mig-21 and 23(to my suprise) and the availability of AWACS means that even the Mig-21 drivers get to do and practice their thing, protecting the groundpounders from enemy incursion.

I had some proper intense dogfights on the tfs-51 servers with a swarm of Sabres against my threeship of MiG-21s.

 

Well, Iran has a couple F-14s...I heard ED is focusing on the Iranian faction...let´s see how that turns out.


Edited by Chrinik
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Mig 21s fly higher than modern fighters in MP you know something ain't right lol.

 

More seriously, it has to do with the audience which is quite casual in its way of flying (nothing wrong about it), not sure any modern air force doctrine recommends flying the fighters in the weeds at all times.

 

Nowadays the top cover for bombers in DCS is actually...below them. :P

 

As an enthusiastic Mig 21 user it breaks my heart to see all those fighters with these fancy look down shoot down capabilities fly so low :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Mig 21s fly higher than modern fighters in MP you know something ain't right lol.

 

More seriously, it has to do with the audience which is quite casual in its way of flying (nothing wrong about it), not sure any modern air force doctrine recommends flying the fighters in the weeds at all times.

 

Nowadays the top cover for bombers in DCS is actually...below them. :P

 

As an enthusiastic Mig 21 user it breaks my heart to see all those fighters with these fancy look down shoot down capabilities fly so low :)

 

Wow this sums up what I feel.. But unfortunately there is major reasons for this.

 

1. The f15 can not maneuver correctly in the higher altitudes where it normally fights. [supposedly being fixed in next update]

 

2. eos in RU planes is used as a primary weapon system instead of using it as intended a secondary system. So hiding in the mountains makes for easy prey. This is not real world tactics and before someone tries blasting me about it. Be honest with your self; the role of the SU/MIG is for air superiority You cannot effectively do this hiding in mountain ranges. Hiding in the mountains has two adverse affects. 1. you're radio communications are severely limited if not cut off all together and 2. you truly have no S/A on the bigger picture. You might be able to pounce on something that gets close but in the real world you're not effective and a waste of a resource.

 

3. The conlayer in the game is extremely un-realistic. I spoke with my cousin about this as he was an f15 pilot and now flys for fedEx. Actualy Scorch asked me to ask him in regards to Contrailing as a tactic with the f15c in real life. His Response was this. "We would send some one up to find the con layer and see if we should be above or below it." I also showed him that the layer in DCS starts are 25,000 and ends at 39,000. His response: "I've never seen a conlayer 15,000ft tall more like 5000ft at max and at times only maybe a 1000ft. Durring summer months the top up to 41k winter lower much lower."

 

4. it's a game and unfortunately based on sole KDR and not the end game.


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this sums up what I feel.. But unfortunately there is major reasons for this.

 

1. The f15 can not maneuver correctly in the higher altitudes where it normally fights. [supposedly being fixed in next update]

 

2. eos in RU planes is used as a primary weapon system instead of using it as intended a secondary system. So hiding in the mountains makes for easy prey. This is not real world tactics and before someone tries blasting me about it. Be honest with your self; the role of the SU/MIG is for air superiority You cannot effectively do this hiding in mountain ranges. Hiding in the mountains has two adverse affects. 1. you're radio communications are severely limited if not cut off all together and 2. you truly have no S/A on the bigger picture. You might be able to pounce on something that gets close but in the real world you're not effective and a waste of a resource.

 

3. The conlayer in the game is extremely un-realistic. I spoke with my cousin about this as he was an f15 pilot and now flys for fedEx. Actualy Scorch asked me to ask him in regards to Contrailing as a tactic with the f15c in real life. His Response was this. "We would send some one up to find the con layer and see if we should be above or below it." I also showed him that the layer in DCS starts are 25,000 and ends at 39,000. His response: "I've never seen a conlayer 15,000ft tall more like 5000ft at max and at times only maybe a 1000ft. Durring summer months the top up to 41k winter lower much lower."

 

4. it's a game and unfortunately based on sole KDR and not the end game.

 

F-15 fight high just fine, the issue is that because the bandits are lurking in and out of mountains you need to get closer to kill them. In such an environment it makes sense to be lower when closer.

 

If a group of high F-15 is getting shot down by low flying Flankers then that is down to bad organisation, bad scanning and greed. All traits of casual mp.

If a solo Flanker flying high is easy meat for an F-15 why on earth would they do that other than to make the Eagle pilot happy instead him muttering about flying in the weeds being noobish etc. Basically it's a whine of make it easy for me or i'll accuse you of not flying realitically. Tailoring tactics to survive is realistic.

 

Radar is the primary tool in the Flanker whoever tells you different is doing it wrong.

You don't fly blindly in the mountains, you use radar to find the target/s then mountains and eos to circumnavigate the point of interception and flank the target. Just one of many ways to prosecute an attack.

 

As for SA, right now comms between players makes up for datalink, dl being the real world answer.

 

The conlayer is right but probably too much at any one time, it should be tied on with DCS weather system to set altitudes and variation. The altitudes it shows up at though is more or less correct. Has your cousin ever flown over Russia? :)

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the real life NOE conditions are like. However, I have heard the yammer, not only from light plane pilots, but from USN pilots as well. I would point out that, at low level vs mid level, there is the turbulence factor. Wind moves differently at lower levels and, as such, give rise to lots of shake, rattle, and roll to the NOE flyer. Higher up, the only changes in wind speed and direction comes from thermals and gross land forms such as mountains.

 

It seems to me that ED could add in a bit of code that would increase the physical jitter the plane receives as it gets lower in height above ground and higher in true airspeed.

  • Like 1

The Hornet is best at killing things on the ground. Now, if we could just get a GAU-8 in the nose next to the AN/APG-65, a titanium tub around the pilot, and a couple of J-58 engines in the tail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However lots of MP missions don't use any wind. But I agree if we were subjected to downdrafts flying downwind form mountains, the low mountain flying might not be such a thing anymore.

Although I'm not sure a fast flying jet is really subject to it as much as a glider or helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-15 fight high just fine, the issue is that because the bandits are lurking in and out of mountains you need to get closer to kill them. In such an environment it makes sense to be lower when closer.

Yeah well define just fine? Straight & level then sure why not. But that's NOT what you're trying to argue. The EAGLE is botched severely in it's designed combat envelope in DCS. This roll rate and loss of control is unrealistic. You are either A. ignorant [used in the true context of the word and not meant to be derogatory towards frostie.] of what the f15 should be able to do or B. arbitrary love you have for all things SU/MIG that you just refuse to except that the f15 is better then what DCS currently has it to be. That and when a former eagle driver says NO its not right then NO NO NO it is not FINE!

If a group of high F-15 is getting shot down by low flying Flankers then that is down to bad organisation, bad scanning and greed. All traits of casual mp.

If a solo Flanker flying high is easy meat for an F-15 why on earth would they do that other than to make the Eagle pilot happy instead him muttering about flying in the weeds being noobish etc. Basically it's a whine of make it easy for me or i'll accuse you of not flying realitically. Tailoring tactics to survive is realistic.

Nope nope nope again you are missing the point of my statement. My point was that in real world tactics one plane just sitting in the mountains is not realistic and a waste of an asset. I never said one plane going defensive trying to survive was not realistic. This is a game and I'm not arguing MP tactics, The question refereed to why there is no High engagements. You've time and time again have come in here trying to argue points that are not pertinent to the statement being said.

 

Radar is the primary tool in the Flanker whoever tells you different is doing it wrong.

You don't fly blindly in the mountains, you use radar to find the target/s then mountains and eos to circumnavigate the point of interception and flank the target. Just one of many ways to prosecute an attack.

Please again STOP.. Just Stop. Real world tactics you're correct. MP tactics seems you're wrong as those in MP don't use radar they just hide in the mnt looking with eos. Nothing in your statement has anything other then to confirm what I already said. I need to Rephrase this. I do not mean everyone flying flankers | Fulcrums only use EOS in the mnts. but there are a good amount of those whom do. Apologies to those whom I might have offended by the lump statement of that comment.

 

As for SA, right now comms between players makes up for datalink, dl being the real world answer.

You like to argue just for the sake of it.. So let me just stop this one DEAD IN IT'S TRACKS!!!!!!!!! Last I checked in the real world there are things called radios.. Kind of just like team speak.. Only difference truly is L.O.S. issues. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS DATA LINK. No matter how much you wish to believe it so it is not. OHH did I mention DATALINK is also bound by LOS? So flying in low in the mountain valleys it's going to be intermittent or even not available!

 

The conlayer is right but probably too much at any one time, it should be tied on with DCS weather system to set altitudes and variation. The altitudes it shows up at though is more or less correct. Has your cousin ever flown over Russia? :)

Again you're only reading what you want to read. I again NEVER SAID that it was not correct in its altitude ranges nor did my cousin. What was SAID is that it is not consistently from 25,000ft to 40,000ft, and that it's generally only around a few thousand to 5000ft in altitude difference! Hell it can be more if the weather conditions make it so like when complete overcast with a dewpoint spred of 2* from 0AGL with ceilings 60,000+. like when I flew from klaf to a kabq in complete ifr/soup from take off to 41,000 as co-pilot with my friends dad when he sold his eclipse 500. WORST flight of my life. I'm sure that whole time from take off to 41,000 ft we were conning the entire time. With that being as so who cares because you can't see the cons regardless. That and truly this was in discussion on a clear day not a highly humid thunderstorm enviroment

 

As far as my cousin flying over Russia I'm sure he has. He flys for FEDEX now and was doing stints in china and other areas there. In regards to RUSSIA makes no difference they don't have anything special about their WEATHER then North America!

 

Frostie you're more then welcome to enjoy your Russian birds More power to you I think they are great planes my self except for the cockpits look like a smurf was blown up inside of it and the fact they have a ridiculous amount of parasitic drag [no flush rivets on the skin like a bunch of goosebumps]


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah well define just fine? Straight & level then sure why not. But that's NOT what you're trying to argue. The EAGLE is botched severely in it's designed combat envelope in DCS. This roll rate and loss of control is unrealistic. You are either A. ignorant [used in the true context of the word and not meant to be derogatory towards frostie.] of what the f15 should be able to do or B. arbitrary love you have for all things SU/MIG that you just refuse to except that the f15 is better then what DCS currently has it to be. That and when a former eagle driver says NO its not right then NO NO NO it is not FINE!

 

 

I don't disagree that the F-15 FM needs work. It doesn't matter squat that the F-15 in DCS doesn't perform as a real F-15 it still has the performance to act like an aircraft at altitude. If you can't handle a DCS F-15 at altitude then this is your own doing.

Plenty of F-15s fly high and stay high, they're not having these hang ups about it because it doesn't match an F-15 perfectly, they're just getting on with it.

 

Other stuff that you make ridiculously awkward to quote.

There are plenty of high engagements in DCS, the terrain, missile performance and the mismatch in platforms makes it more common to get lower.

 

EOS is not a primary tool those that do mostly fail, to say that Flankers just enter the mountains with EOS only is a gross exaggeration, you're telling me there are never any 29 nails on public servers?

 

DL, radio are all related to LoS yes but where do you get the impression that there is no LoS just because the you can't see the bandit?

 

Frostie you're more then welcome to enjoy your Russian birds More power to you I think they are great planes my self except for the cockpits look like a smurf was blown up inside of it and the fact they have a ridiculous amount of parasitic drag [no flush rivets on the skin like a bunch of goosebumps]

Pigeon hole me all you like, I've probably got 10 times more hours in an F-15 than you. :)

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that the F-15 FM needs work. It doesn't matter squat that the F-15 in DCS doesn't perform as a real F-15 it still has the performance to act like an aircraft at altitude. If you can't handle a DCS F-15 at altitude then this is your own doing.

Plenty of F-15s fly high and stay high, they're not having these hang ups about it because it doesn't match an F-15 perfectly, they're just getting on with it.

 

Other stuff that you make ridiculously awkward to quote.

There are plenty of high engagements in DCS, the terrain, missile performance and the mismatch in platforms makes it more common to get lower.

 

EOS is not a primary tool those that do mostly fail, to say that Flankers just enter the mountains with EOS only is a gross exaggeration, you're telling me there are never any 29 nails on public servers?

 

DL, radio are all related to LoS yes but where do you get the impression that there is no LoS just because the you can't see the bandit?

 

 

Pigeon hole me all you like, I've probably got 10 times more hours in an F-15 than you. :)

 

I fly high regularly. I make due. I just should not have to have the extra stress/finesse needed to fly that high.

 

Again I did not say everyone just sits in the mnts and uses exclusive eos. But there is by far a huge number that do so. My apologies. I just Re-Read what I type in my response to you before this one and it does read that way. I am sorry I did not mean everyone.

 

And where did I say that if you don't see a bandit that radio and DL would be related to LOS of that bandit? If you're in a deep valley in a mnt LOS from radio and DL would be severely hampered if not cut off unless your support aircraft is High and relatively close.

 

In my first post that you quoted #2. I stated that in game people are using EOS as their primary mode for acquiring targets instead of it true design as a secondary system. I guess I can see how you could have perceived the way I typed it, that I meant it was the primary system.

 

And I apologize for the quoting issues.. I hate breaking one entire quote into multiple quotes to separate each response to that specific section of the quote.

 

I'm not trying to Pigeon hole you. I acknowledge you have a lot of time and knowledge you just seem to try and redirect things or maybe it's you're miss reading/interpreting my intentions.


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it is noted that tactics in DCS depart from reality and to the BIG list of things already mentioned - I will add something that is perhaps more abstract.

 

I do not think that players are always flying the aircraft in the manner it was designed because they are not always adopting the doctrine of the power that designed it.

 

Perhaps the doctrine and intent of the designers is way more significant than is realised.

 

I will explain.

 

The only country that tries to practice air superiority using almost only aircraft is the United States. This is mostly because the United States has historically been the only one to have the military industry and the desire to project air power far beyond it's borders. Other countries do not project air power like this. This makes the US air doctrine completely unique.

 

If you want to simulate real world sorties, you might have to consider the doctrine and the actual missions you would most likely perform with your platform. I think it is obvious that the F-15s should always be an aggressor because this is how they have historically been used and statistically you can assume this will continue. The F-15 must always push, grow and control an airspace. Historically the Flankers are deployed more defensively and close to their own borders and air defenses and this is a matter of record. Statistically you would could assume this will continue also. Flankers will defend but they will flank for tactical advantage but rarely only very rarely for strategic goals.

 

The F-15 has it's mission and the Flanker has it's mission. Same goal but not the same mission.

 

Air Superiority might be a goal for both platforms ... but under what doctrine, and for what purpose? Without these questions considered the sorties in DCS will never look anything like what is truly likely. Everyone talks about not wanting balanced aircraft ... then why do you always seek balanced doctrines and balanced missions? It makes no sense.

 

Asymetric aircraft - of course

Asymetric mission - it follows

Asymetric doctrine - as in real life


Edited by vicx
an open ended question
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation makes me wonder.. I haven't yet seen an MP mission with significant air defense threats all around the battle area. Think 104th server missions, but all areas littered with Sa-15s or worse, plus manpads and AAA of course. This would be an interesting idea, as it would pretty much prevent low altitude flight over enemy territory

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation makes me wonder.. I haven't yet seen an MP mission with significant air defense threats all around the battle area. Think 104th server missions, but all areas littered with Sa-15s or worse, plus manpads and AAA of course. This would be an interesting idea, as it would pretty much prevent low altitude flight over enemy territory

 

At least one of the 104th missions has the option for helicopter pilots to deploy stinger teams near the fighter AO.

 

If you really wanted to be realistic, the eastern block would have various SAM systems (ranging from Strelas to Medium range systems like the SA-6 and SA-11) all over the place, while the US would be fielding Patriot systems near their strategic areas and relying on fighter cover (along with some short range missiles, AAA and MANPADs) pretty much everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

 

Radar is the primary tool in the Flanker whoever tells you different is doing it wrong.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150315

 

Please read page 4 paragraph 1 the last sentence

page 4 paragraph 3 the last sentence on the page.

page 20 paragraph 2 sentence 1 in backets.

 

There's more into that guide that says the Radar is basically not to be used.

 

In the above mentioned post you praised the OP about how good it is etc yet by your indication here you should be telling him it's wrong Flanker/drivers should not be flying that way.

 

So with that please continue with your Hippocratic posts.

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150315

 

Please read page 4 paragraph 1 the last sentence

page 4 paragraph 3 the last sentence on the page.

page 20 paragraph 2 sentence 1 in backets.

 

There's more into that guide that says the Radar is basically not to be used.

 

In the above mentioned post you praised the OP about how good it is etc yet by your indication here you should be telling him it's wrong Flanker/drivers should not be flying that way.

 

So with that please continue with your Hippocratic posts.

 

I've added an addendum to my guide to clarify this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Santi, your tactics work and I'm not arguing them. Personally I think your guide is well made and pretty darn cool. The point of my statement was not to degrade nor argue your tactics. In this sim flying the flanker/fulcrum you have to adapt and your tactics are sound. Please do not think I'm putting them down. As I commented on some ones question as why the fights are in the weeds. I pointed out that the tactics employed in this sim eos is used as a primary sensor and I was argued/flamed for it. Unfortunately it has to be due to nature of the sims multiplayer enviromennt and lack of an overall community goal. It boils down to a single persons goal of kdr.

So with that I commend you for your good work on your guide. Best of luck


Edited by pr1malr8ge

For the WIN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Santi, your tactics work and I'm not arguing them. Personally I think your guide is well made and pretty darn cool. The point of my statement was not to degrade nor argue your tactics. In this sim flying the flanker/fulcrum you have to adapt and your tactics are sound. Please do not think I'm putting them down. As I commented on some ones question as why the fights are in the weeds. I pointed out that the tactics employed in this sim eos is used as a primary sensor and I was argued/flamed for it. Unfortunately it has to be due to nature of the sims multiplayer enviromennt and lack of an overall community goal. It boils down to a single persons goal of kdr.

So with that I commend you for your good work on your guide. Best of luck

 

 

Wait what? I didn't take any offense from your statement or anything, I just thought it'd be nice to clarify it and expand in my guide. Thanks though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...