HungaroJET Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 I FEEL THE NEED : the need for SPEED ! Of Course : COMBAT ! ! ! Fight or Flight ? If I wanna fly > I use FSX or Falcon...not the terrible LOMAC Su-27/F-15C flight model...(I am cryin' but it's true)...the Cobra & the stall are a JOKE :( ... in a whisper: WAKE UP E.D. ! WE NEED ADVANCED FLIGHT MODELS FOR THE FIGHTERS ! but if I NEED some speed & adrenaline > My vote is LOMAC & LOMAC & LOMAC ! ...especially in GUNZO with external view :) > my FAV I just know: :) 24 yrs in combat flight simulations ! BTW : WAITING 4 BS ! :D Atop the midnight tarmac, a metal beast awaits. To be flown below the radar, to bring the enemy his fate. HAVE A BANDIT DAY ! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist
Kindred Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 I'm restraining my vote. You cannot have one without the other. I'll take both of them...
SUBS17 Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Not true. The basic avionics in the American aircraft don't even come close to the way they are supposed to work, and yes, I know many of those systems first-hand (and it is information that I can talk about on a public forum). The most glaring of which is navigation. The HSI sort of makes me laugh. Weapons availability and nomenclature of the various adapters for hanging them are also all out of whack. The A-10 comes stock with rocket pods that can't even be carried by the hog (LAU-61s can't be carried), when they are loaded with HE FFAR you get 19 per launcher. This is an accurate number for that launcher, but again, the Hog does not carry that launcher. If you select WP FFAR, suddenly the rocket load is reduced to 4 per launcher, as if they have suddenly, magically become LAU-10s. Then, weapons that the A-10 CAN carry aren't even included in the stock loadout availability. The stock loadout allows you to hang AGM-65s on stations that don't even have the datalink to carry video to the TVM. The nomenclature for a HUGE amount of the equipment in LOMAC, even on the Russian side, is also completely screwed up. Since I am able to correct most of these problems on my own, it seems to me that the things I can't correct would be fairly simple for ED to correct. I think they would be MUCH simpler than "correcting" a flight model. I think that calling a flight model inaccurate is even nuttier than comments about weapon inaccuracies...since only a couple of people here have actually flown ANY of the aircraft depicted in the game. Just my two cents. :D I agree same goes for the CBUs without BA, AD, Nose/Tail settings, it would make it more interesting and also the master Arm default to safe. A working TACAN would also rock. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
Guest IguanaKing Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Yup, I'd rather have them get the simple stuff right before moving into areas that nobody here, except for maybe 2 people, have experienced first-hand. On the issue of TACAN, the CIS countries don't have TACAN stations...but...Western forces would bring their own if they were going to be operating in the area for any length of time. So yeah...we need TACAN, along with an HSI that works the way its suposed to. BA on the CBUs is also absolutely essential for those weapons to have their maximum effectiveness. :D
Recommended Posts