New Black Shark Movie "Furious Angels"

[Kuky]

One thing I really can't understand... Falcon 4 has got only 1 flyable aircraft, namely the F-16 and they talk all this crap about how BS has ONLY Ka-50 as flyable... or complaining how LockOn has only 5 flyable aircraft (not counting different versions)... that's just absurd and double standards, just showing how ignorant and blind some people are... they can't admit when they are wrong... They are just jealous :) as Russians beat them with much better sim... fully working chopper!

 

That F-16 cockpit is great (the pit itself)

 

PS the lamest part I dispise so much from such people is when they can't even give any credit to something being done by others... especially Russians.

 

Oh and there's one guy stating how Russians are always decaded behind in all of technology... I wish I could slam one R-37 into his ass using HMTS :D

[SuperKungFu]

Yea i agree, this just goes to show you that you can't please everyone. The falcon community already established their opinion on LO and won't change. They argue they are better because they have a clickable pit, we showed them the ka-50 in Black Shark and then they say its a helo, so it still doesn't match up to falcon. When FC came out with a fixed-wing aircraft, the Su-25T, they bashed a lot on it. First they said it wasn't a western aircraft, its old...bla bla bla. Then they stated they are much better because of a dynamic campaign. Actually, when it really comes down to it, even if ED made a western plane with the dynamic campaign and the works, those hardcore falcon fanboys still probably won't buy it because of starforce. So i gave up trying to argue against those narrow-minded people. Any lock on questions that pops up over there, i try to direct them to this site so they can get some real help. Can't believe the flight sim world would also have so many politics involved.

[warthogmadman987]

It is this kind of arguing between 2 groups for the same genre of an artform that pushes us futher into the hole that the fps games are putting us into.

[Kuky]

Well I can also think like this:

 

What would you do if you spend 10's of thousands of dollards for an F-16 cockpit... would you wanna fly something other then F-16? I doubt it :D

 

I guess the only time they would move from Falcon4 to some other sim is if they would get *place your guesses here* as flyable :D

[MBot]

During the first Gulf war? As in Desert Storm?

 

First Gulf war = Iran-Iraq war

[Yellonet]

Just watched it..... wow. Just wow :worthy:

 

The scenes, the music, everything fits together perfectly, and there's some really cool effects too, like the image in the tracking camera on the chopper firing at the carrier :)

[firesoldier845]

It is this kind of arguing between 2 groups for the same genre of an artform that pushes us futher into the hole that the fps games are putting us into.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Although, I gotta admit it's a tough call between flight simmers or RPGers as to who argues the most online. But if it's not Falcon vs LockOn, it's the F-15 vs the SU-27 or east vs west. It's funny though, same old same old silly people. They spend so much time in the forums arguing over stupid crap I wonder if they actually play Lock On at all. It's is good entertainment though. The ubi lockon forums are good for a laugh or two as well but I think most of the 'top gunners' lurk here.

[GGTharos]

Just because the rest of his post is clueless, doesn't mean he's wrong ... because they -are- a decade behind in technology. It doesn't mean their stuff doesn't work ... it means its 'worse' ... whatever 'worse' happens to mean to you.

 

Oh and there's one guy stating how Russians are always decaded behind in all of technology... I wish I could slam one R-37 into his ass using HMTS :D

[vistrel]

I visit frugal occasionally and loved how they linked Ace Combat 6 to Lockon :)

[Kuky]

Well that guys comment GG is simply not true

[GGTharos]

I'm not going to argue about it Kuky, they've been a decade behind in avionics forever, and they still are. They're catching up faster now, but not 'fast enough' so they're still lagging. But like I said ... just because they're 'behind' doesn't mean their stuff is to be disrespected ... it'll kill you just the same.

[Kuky]

Well sure, but my point was it's not ALL behind, and like I said the US is behind in systems like EOS and HMTS which russians have for a long time now and americans don't, and their short range IR missiles are inferior to russian... or am I wrong here?

[Weta43]

Or getting a productionisable fighter into the air with vectored thrust.

or generally designing airframes

or rocket motors for that matter - the US presently uses Russian rocket motors designed in the 70's to launch satelites because they produce considerably more thrust than those designed by the US aerospatial industry today. (using a technique that had been abandoned as 'imposible' inthe US)

Who was the first person into space ?

The US got the first person on the moon, but the USSR had soft landed 3 (?) lunar roving robots before that - a task no less technically difficult, as scientifically rewarding, but safer.

GG is right - they are behind in avionics - mostly because till recently they followed a doctrine that relied less on plane borne avionics & more on ground control & co-ordination, & have since decided to adopt the western approach & are presently moving to parity with western avionics.

On the subject of 'avionics' - It's not something I'm that sure about & I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong,, but didn't I read in this forum that the USSR were the ones who got the first electronically scanned radar into a production fighter (& wasn't it the first fighter capable of targeting & providing guidance to more than one target at a time)?

[Pilotasso]

Russias R&D budget is only a small fraction of that of US and even europes.

 

While many dont care what this means, in reality it does mean something.

[nscode]

It means that what they achieve is even more respectable