scatter Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 I want a remake of Microprose's "F117 Stealth Fighter" with modern graphics, co-op netplay, and a mission editor. It was a very speculative sim (and in many ways wrong) but it was FUN! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Virtual Australian Air Force
D-Scythe Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 Where did you get this report? I knew that bombs dropped above speed of sound used to bounce in unpredictable ways, that means also against the firing aircraft... Bombs carried or dropped at or even close to supersonic speed often malfunctioned. Given that JDAMs are basically GP bombs with GPS guidance attached, I see no reason why they should be better than previous bombs, from this point of view.... Bounce off *what*?
Aeroscout Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 The ground I assume. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
D-Scythe Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 The ground I assume. Why would a precision guided munition bounce off the ground? You want to hit the target directly - if your JDAM is bouncing the ground, you just missed.
Viper101 Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 Why would a precision guided munition bounce off the ground? You want to hit the target directly - if your JDAM is bouncing the ground, you just missed. the target ate alittle to many Whoppers from BK the other day and gained a few hundred pounds so basically the JDAM bounced off it.:lol: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Aeroscout Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 Why would a precision guided munition bounce off the ground? You want to hit the target directly - if your JDAM is bouncing the ground, you just missed. I agree! Exactally! I really dont know what he ment either. You cant really bounce off the air, and the bomb is falling twards earth, so i had to assume the ground. :huh: so, I guess tht means that a JDAM cannot be released from 50,000 ft because it will miss. (and bounce? :dunno: :D) simple as that. so, what does it matter? most SAMS cant reach that altitude any way, so flying a bit lowwer wont hurt you. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
Starlight Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Bounce off *what*? Sorry, since English is not my mother-tongue, I probably made a mistake explaining the issue. IK caught it, bombs, when dropped close to supersonic speed (and above) tend to be pushed towards the launching aircraft. This issue happened several times IRL. Beeing blown out of the sky by your own bomb is not the best option for a bomber pilot, definitely. Another problem is that bombs can't even be carried at speed greater to that because the % of malfunction rises sharply. This is not something I'm just inventing now, I read several stories about that issue, and it is also covered by "Air Power" boardgame series rules, which were written by J.D. Webster, a USN A-7 pilot. I think he knew that subject. Now, that applied to GP bombs, that is Mk-XX series, but also usual GBU and JDAMs are just GP bombs modified with kits. I don't know if now they managed somehow to get the bombs dropped at supersonic speed. Internal bomb bays solve the issue of carrying them at hi-speed, but not the issue of the launch. I think the problem concerns the fact that around Mach1 the air around the aircraft is compressed in uneven waves, it's not a smooth airflow as in normal flight. Being the bombs ballistic they could be badly influenced at the moment of release, so maybe they behave in an unpredictable way.
dodger42 Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Big deal on the laser guided bomb capability. How are the US going to insert special forces onto 747's in mid flight anymore? . . . Lockon Advanced Realism with Touch-Buddy
BeachAV8R Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Hehe..I took this photograph of an F-117 shooting a TACAN approach into Bakersfield, CA last week. He was 1000' below us as we were descending into the LA area... We paced him for about 3 or 4 minutes... Maybe he was flying to his retirement ceremony... ;) BeachAV8R
Starlight Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 anyway, apart from technical subjects, it's a shame that the Nighthawks are being retired. It was one of the most revolutionary and efficient designs in the history of aviation. It had a stunning success rate and an incredible survivability. And it also provided some of the most fascinating stories of military aviation. I was just amazed by the first-hand accounts of "the program" which went on for years at Tonopah in absolute secrecy. I'm not really convinced that the Pentagon today has an aircraft able to do what the Nighthawk already does. But as I learned with the Tomcat, there are many reasons for an aircraft to be phased out, even without the presence of an equivalent or superior substitute.
GGTharos Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 The Navy got such with the SuperHornet because they screwed up their budget enough to pull out of the NATF - IIRC a variable sweep variant of the F-22 was proposed for the Navy. But then again, the SH isn't really all that bad of a plane. It isn't revolutionary, but it can do the job of protecting the fleet, kicking doors down and blowing up things all in one package - ie. it keeps up. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Now that F-117 is retiring, the one we have in Belgrade will become really valuable museum piece. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
MGonzales Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I want a remake of Microprose's "F117 Stealth Fighter" with modern graphics, co-op netplay, and a mission editor. It was a very speculative sim (and in many ways wrong) but it was FUN! If the number of hours played determines where you rank a sim, then MP's F-117 sim would still be considered my favorite game of all time! Maybe partly because in the early '90s I didn't have people on message boards telling me what all was wrong with my sim. I also wasn't constantly online looking for a patch, update or mod, and I had no idea how realistic it was nor did I even care. I just played the game for hours on end by my lonesome (usually at night in dim lighting) and I had so much fun doing so! :) My return to flight sims ~4 years ago after about a 10 year hiatus was to find something to play on my PC similar to F-117. I had no idea where to start looking and my search eventually ended with DID's Total Air War, which is similar in many ways but can still be played on current PCs. Now I play all types of flight sims today (even MSFS) but that arcade-feeling-uber-stealth-plane with make-no-apologies-for-concessions-to-realism game play keeps me playing these types of sims more than any other. The only thing I want even more than an updated Eurofighter, F-22, or F-35 sim is a new F-117 sim. I can appreciate that not everyone is interested (some felt MP's F-117 was boring, especially with the more realistic Lockheed model vs. the Microprose model with a/a and Carrier capabilities while flying daytime missions), but F-117 was my kinda game! -- Mark
Aeroscout Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I can Imagine such a game would be alot of fun. I have not had the privilage of playing it. (I was just born in the early 90s!) so, i cant relate to your experiences, but i do understand what makes a good game. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
VMFA-Blaze Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Hehe..I took this photograph of an F-117 shooting a TACAN approach into Bakersfield, CA last week. He was 1000' below us as we were descending into the LA area... We paced him for about 3 or 4 minutes... Maybe he was flying to his retirement ceremony... ;) BeachAV8R Thats really what I call an intersting visual.. ~S~ Blaze intel Cor i7-6700K ASUS ROG MAX VIII Extreme G.Skill TridentZ Series 32 GB Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SATA II ASUS GTX 1080/DIRECTX 12 Windows 10 PRO Thrustmaster Warthog Oculus Rift VR
Anytime Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Yeah then why did it just get slammed at a senate enquiry recently for not being able to perform it's duties any better than the Hornet. I'll see if I can dig up the link. The Navy got such with the SuperHornet because they screwed up their budget enough to pull out of the NATF - IIRC a variable sweep variant of the F-22 was proposed for the Navy. But then again, the SH isn't really all that bad of a plane. It isn't revolutionary, but it can do the job of protecting the fleet, kicking doors down and blowing up things all in one package - ie. it keeps up.
GGTharos Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 'Better than the Hornet' in what manner? It's better in BVR, it'll do about the same for air to mud (and really, was the Hornet poor at this to begin with?) and anti-shipping. It's also got some low-observable features, and a lighter maintenance foot-print. Over all it's better, but as I said - it isn't revolutionary. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Aeroscout Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 What's "it?" the F-117, or the super bug? I assume the Super hornet. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
Pilotasso Posted March 19, 2007 Author Posted March 19, 2007 Why would a precision guided munition bounce off the ground? You want to hit the target directly - if your JDAM is bouncing the ground, you just missed. He means that WWII technique where fighters would drop bombs so low that the fuse wouldnt contact the ground, just the belly of the bomb, so that it would skip and bounce off the ground for hitting targets in special ways. It was very effective to send bombs inside buildings through gates and windows or damms, blowing them from the inside. Extremely efective but exedenly hazardous as well. It rendered the fighter vulnerable to small arms fire (though I can imagine it would confuse the guys operating AAA). Many pilots who attempted this ended up being impacted by their own bombs. It makes no sense in todays weapons and all you would achieve was a drop without detonation, because at those speeds there would be no time to arm the bomb or even damage the detonator on the bounces. .
Pilotasso Posted March 19, 2007 Author Posted March 19, 2007 Now that F-117 is retiring, the one we have in Belgrade will become really valuable museum piece. Correction: you dont have ONE. You have half of whats left of the wreckage. The other half is probably in Moscow being pasted onto the PAK-FA prototype :D .
VMFA-Blaze Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I actually saw this coming... There was a program on the Military Channel that really exposed the plane to the public... I mean they showed never before seen footage of the instrument panel and a lot of "so called" classified information... Did you know that the on board computer was at a lower level then the Nintendo...unbelievable :D ~S~ Blaze intel Cor i7-6700K ASUS ROG MAX VIII Extreme G.Skill TridentZ Series 32 GB Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SATA II ASUS GTX 1080/DIRECTX 12 Windows 10 PRO Thrustmaster Warthog Oculus Rift VR
Aeroscout Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Which Nintendo? The orrigional NES? DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
Pilotasso Posted March 19, 2007 Author Posted March 19, 2007 I actually saw this coming... There was a program on the Military Channel that really exposed the plane to the public... I mean they showed never before seen footage of the instrument panel and a lot of "so called" classified information... Did you know that the on board computer was at a lower level then the Nintendo...unbelievable :D Blaze All major fighter cumputers are much slower than desktop PC's. Thats because thay are built under extremely conservative high quality standards to reduce the rate of failiure/hour. FBW chips are the epithome of that, they must run 99.9999% fail safe. Space shutle computers still hold as much memory as 486's to this day. .
VMFA-Blaze Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 All major fighter cumputers are much slower than desktop PC's. Thats because thay are built under extremely conservative high quality standards to reduce the rate of failiure/hour. FBW chips are the epithome of that, they must run 99.9999% fail safe. Space shutle computers still hold as much memory as 486's to this day. Thanks :lol: ~S~ Blaze intel Cor i7-6700K ASUS ROG MAX VIII Extreme G.Skill TridentZ Series 32 GB Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SATA II ASUS GTX 1080/DIRECTX 12 Windows 10 PRO Thrustmaster Warthog Oculus Rift VR
Recommended Posts