Jump to content

Modern flyable Red Aviation in Combined Arms (modernized Fulcrum and Flanker family)


musolo

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not convinced personally.

You sure sound pretty convinced to me. 

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Would I love for it to expand? Abso-freaking-lutely! At the expense of fidelity and realism? No. 

That is pretty convinced statement.

Well this  "my way or no way" approach won`t get you anywhere. You know better than i do that it won`t ever happen your way.  It`s not possible your way. As much as i would like it to be your way it won`t help. So  it`s kind of a futile gesture. And counterproductive   attitude. So far i`ve red all kinds of your arguments against my suggestions. Fine. Let`s hear yours. You gotta have some right? Otherwise your mindset is non different of yet another gatekeeper.


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty convinced statement.
Well this  "my way or no way" approach won`t get you anywhere. You know better than i do that it won`t ever happen your way.  It`s not possible your way. As much as i would like it to be your way it won`t help. So  it`s kind of a futile gesture. And counterproductive   attitude. So far i`ve red all kinds of your arguments against my suggestions. Fine. Let`s hear yours. You gotta have some right? Otherwise your mindset is non different of yet another gatekeeper.
The argument is that low fidelity modules are a waste of development time, for a product aimed at producing high fidelity modules.
  • Like 1

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harker said:
2 hours ago, musolo said:
That is pretty convinced statement.
Well this  "my way or no way" approach won`t get you anywhere. You know better than i do that it won`t ever happen your way.  It`s not possible your way. As much as i would like it to be your way it won`t help. So  it`s kind of a futile gesture. And counterproductive   attitude. So far i`ve red all kinds of your arguments against my suggestions. Fine. Let`s hear yours. You gotta have some right? Otherwise your mindset is non different of yet another gatekeeper.

The argument is that low fidelity modules are a waste of development time, for a product aimed at producing high fidelity modules.

Question was not ment for you man) But tell me what is DCS Ground Crew tag means? Are you a developer?


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question was not ment for you man) But tell me what is DCS Ground Crew tag means? Are you a developer?
True, I just felt like chipping in. I want capable red aircraft as much as anyone else, but not at the expense of what DCS is all about.

The tag means that I'll try to help new players with questions, where I can, although I mostly do that in the Hornet side of the forums, as that's an aircraft I know well and can give accurate replies for. I'm in no way affiliated with ED.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harker said:

True, I just felt like chipping in. I want capable red aircraft as much as anyone else, but not at the expense of what DCS is all about.

The tag means that I'll try to help new players with questions, where I can, although I mostly do that in the Hornet side of the forums, as that's an aircraft I know well and can give accurate replies for. I'm in no way affiliated with ED.

Oh i see. Well if you know any  ED product were those classified jets would sit well. Perhaps better than in CA. If you have better way than proposed in this topic to implement some of those modern planes, given that docks are not available for them. i`d love to hear that. 

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 2:25 AM, musolo said:

That is pretty convinced statement.

 

Well, if you misunderstand it you might.

 

Quote

Well this  "my way or no way" approach won`t get you anywhere. You know better than i do that it won`t ever happen your way.  It`s not possible your way. As much as i would like it to be your way it won`t help. So  it`s kind of a futile gesture. And counterproductive   attitude. So far i`ve red all kinds of your arguments against my suggestions. Fine. Let`s hear yours. You gotta have some right? Otherwise your mindset is non different of yet another gatekeeper.

 

Bloody hell, it isn't "my way or no way" - this is the freaking product description of DCS! And it's the freaking product description of CA!

 

And I still have no idea why you think this is appropriate for CA - it's a combined arms module, it hasn't got anything to do with adding more playable aircraft - at all. And not sure why adding more aircraft is suitable for it - the module exists to facilitate a playable ground element, y'know, combined arms? I haven't made that up, that's it product description, hell it's even in the name! 

 

You just seem to be using its low fidelity vehicles (one of it's criticisms) as an excuse to develop low fidelity aircraft.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 2:02 AM, musolo said:

Well the game isn`t going any direction now nor my way neither your way. And again i remind you of single main condition for ny playable module for MAC is the presence of docks. And for that reason there is no way we`ll ever see anything in MAC that doesn`t exist in DCS.

 

Erm, yes it is - it's the main point of it.

 

There are proposals to have an improved CA, as again, its lack of fidelity is a major criticism of it not a feature of it - it just ended up that way and most invested in CA are pretty disappointed with how it is. A few people want something that makes it more of a tank simulator (me included - and ED did have a plan to make a full fidelity Abrams, it just didn't go anywhere - but at the time the maps were not suitable at all, that is starting to be no longer the case).

 

And if you are making an aircraft without using documentation - then how are you gathering information? What are you basing your simulation off of? How would you do anything other than make something up?


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Musolo!

Flaming Cliffs 3 is dead!

ED doesn’t want to improve because no one knows why! The trouble back in 2013 was that they brought the whole Flaming Cliffs 2 him to DCS World into that nothing was improved on it.

I think it’s all a marketing because you can make more money with a clickable cockpit. What we admit is true!

If you were a developer, would you prefer to sell a $ 15 product or a $ 80 product? Sure the more expensive $ 80!
Think about the fact that there are people who would give you $ 100 for a product but there are people who could easily persuade you to pay $ 100+ because it is not a problem for him.

That's why I say Flaming Cliffs 3 is dead!

Flaming Cliffs 3 doesn’t fit into DCS World’s products for this trouble.

The solution could be for Flaming Cliffs 3 to be a completely free product and bring customers to DCS World,
so since it's free it's not much to criticize and ED would be tasked with adding a helicopter
or making sure there are more features (working datalink between Flankers and AWACS online servers, Fulcrum Lazur GCI features) keep your product competitive so as many new people come to DCS World!
The point would be not to simulate military secrets, so this passion could live on so that ED cares about what people want.
Upgrading to Deka MFI 55 could create the Su 30KI and MiG 29SM. It has the same MFI 55 as J11 A: https://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1730

More options MFI 55, ED are not interested: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/246938-bagi-i-aktualnye-problemy-mig-29s-ag/?do=findComment&comment=4441682

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/246938-bagi-i-aktualnye-problemy-mig-29s-ag/?do=findComment&comment=4441731

We’re practically talking about a Flaming Cliffs 4 if ED were to raise the price of clickable cockpits to make the Flaming Cliffs 3 free and add these airplanes that are on the links!
I could pass on the idea of how many players would pour into the game and would be many times the number of people you could take on a clickable cockpit to buy.
Or just start thinking about adding a helmet targeting feature, AIM 9X and link16 to the F 15C!

Imagine how many people would start attracting this free to play concept!

Right now, I think it can tie players up for a while in the long run but there’s no concept behind DCS World. You can buy the product,
learn how to use it but online there is nothing but pointless air quake against silly AI and what is now NATO planes is just clay pigeon shooting against Russian fighters!

Understand that the Russian Federation will never release military secrets. ED is unable to do a MiG 29 PFM properly, do you think he will be able to do an entire Russian fighter?
Flaming Cliffs and Lock On was therefore a magically enjoyable game because they didn’t have to be dealt with this problems.
You can understand why ED only wants to make high quality products because that’s how he’s committed for years to come and will live.

I don’t want to convince you but since i uninstalled DCS World, i have since ceased with such problems as you. Check out the rocket topic in the Russian section,
440 pages just about how good the Aim 120 is, how unviable the R 27ER is and how much the R 77 is a joke against an Aim 120 platform.

While the Deka J 11A + MFI 55 upgrade will use these weak R 27ERs and joke R77s, the Su 30MKK will also use these air combat missiles and will not benefit from either.

If you like any of the NATO planes, eg the F 16, fly with it, but if you feel that you do not fly with NATO planes and love the motherland,
which you would protect at the cost of your life, then I do not foretell anything good but suffering and sorrow!

In Russia, if you stray into military territory while cycling, the authorities ask for your ID!
Do you think if you can’t ride a bike to your liking then you will see complete military secrets right here from Russia?
The developers get information from documents that lack the essence to be real, the professional Flanker and Russian pilots here don’t even write secrets because it would be a crime.

I’ve pretty much summarized the options, think about this and if you want to sell your joystick, sell your purchased modules because a modern Russian fighter won’t even show up on an arcade level.
Ever since I stopped this game I have not had any such problems and if you watch your old comrades on YouTube for 3 - 4 years they are not active either.

This part of the game is dead, there is only marketing to new players who haven’t walked this path in what we’ve been in 10+ years!

Sincerely: A Flanker Fan!


Edited by Rush_
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Erm, yes it is - it's the main point of it.

 

There are proposals to have an improved CA, as again, its lack of fidelity is a major criticism of it not a feature of it - it just ended up that way and most invested in CA are pretty disappointed with how it is. A few people want something that makes it more of a tank simulator (me included - and ED did have a plan to make a full fidelity Abrams, it just didn't go anywhere - but at the time the maps were not suitable at all, that is starting to be no longer the case).

 

And if you are making an aircraft without using documentation - then how are you gathering information? You would be basically forced into making something up.

So what do you suggest then? I`m repeating my question.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, musolo said:

So what do you suggest then? I`m repeating my question.

 

Do more Cold War BLUFOR modules so they can fit with REDFOR stuff that's actually doable. Preferably on a mid-to-late Cold War era northern/central Germany map.

 

That's my suggestion. 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Do more Cold War BLUFOR modules so they can fit with REDFOR stuff that's actually doable. Preferably on a mid-to-late Cold War era northern/central Germany map.

 

That's my suggestion. 

 

Obviously i was asking about modern red jets))) This whole topic and its arguments are about modern jets. And you bringing up cold war stuff)  


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 10:45 AM, musolo said:

I mean about modern red jets))) This whole topic and its arguments are about modern jets. And you bringing up cold war stuff.  

 

Well, there isn't much I can suggest apart from hope that MAC can facilitate them or play Ace Combat. In fact, isn't Ace Combat the only game where these aircraft are available to the player? Wonder why that is...


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Well, there's isn't much I can suggest apart from hope that MAC can facilitate them or play Ace Combat. In fact, isn't Ace Combat the only game where these aircraft are available to the player? Wonder why that is...

What is your primary module?

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, musolo said:

What is your primary module?

 

I don't really have one, it changes from time to time.

 

Right now I'm mostly focused on the Mi-8MTV-2, as it's something I've never been good at flying (especially given my set-up) and while difficult for me, it's very rewarding. I figured it might also be beneficial for the upcoming Mi-24P.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I don't really have one, it changes from time to time.

 

Right now I'm mostly focused on the Mi-8MTV-2, as it's something I've never been good at flying (especially given my set-up) and while difficult for me, it's very rewarding. I figured it might also be beneficial for the upcoming Mi-24P.

Yes but you gotta have couple favorite ones right?

i mean jets

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, musolo said:

Due that docks factor nothing classified will be in MAC. As for cold war era modules there isn`t any issuie of classified nature to  get in the way. So no problem there. 

We have stated before, MAC won't be on par with DCS in terms of detail it will be like flaming cliffs.  Eagle doesn't have enough information for a full fidelity SU-27, Su-33 and only recently got permission to do a MiG-29A. However that didn't stop them from doing these planes in Flaming cliffs because it wasn't necessary.  When you said you wanted a Su-35 made with

On 3/25/2021 at 2:13 AM, musolo said:

 publicly available performance  data from manufacturer, plus videos of working MFDs and HUD that are all over youtube. Plus hundreds of Cockpit pictures. With nonclickable cockpit and sometimes simle flight model. 

You were literally describing Flaming Cliffs and MAC.  So there would be no reason to expand Combined Arms when this fits the bill for MAC. 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

 

You were literally describing Flaming Cliffs and MAC.  So there would be no reason to expand Combined Arms when this fits the bill for MAC.

quote from my earlier post.

"Let`s make one thing clear here. Every single module in MAC is developed with access to the docks to begin with. It`s there to  just simplify and minimize pilot`s workload of the FF modules to FC3 level.  So developement of the new modules for MAC will happen based on the availibility of the docks. No docks - no MAC module." 

My heart is bleading every time i say this)


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, musolo said:

quote from my earlier post.

"Let`s make one thing clear here. Every single module in MAC is developed with access to the docks to begin with. It`s there to  just simplify and minimize pilot`s workload of the FF modules to FC3 level.  So developement of the new modules for MAC will happen based on the availibility of the docks. No docks - no MAC module." 

My heart is bleading every time i say this)

 

No new aircraft are listed in the MAC, eg Su 30 or Su 35. If you haven't noticed since 2013 that the Su 27 and the MiG 29 can't be simulated properly (weaker radars than in reality), why do you think that a modern Russian aircraft will will be in DCS World?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, musolo said:

What you say is that they didn`t have the docomentation for FC3?! Are you sure?

The Flanker lacks our data link, which operates at a distance of 1,500 km between AWACS, GCI and the other flankers. These are classified Russian secrets. You can still call FC3 a joke category simulator next to such a topic! https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/262840-n001-has-poor-lock-and-detection-ranges-compared-to-manual/

 

If you read the Russian topic about missiles, they are just arguing about how the AIM 120 works in reality and whether the R77 has a maximum range of 50km or 80km!

 

After that, anyone who has no eyes will not see that only laymen believe that there will be any progress here on Su 27 or any modern Flanker. The Deca Su 30MKK doesn't have the right documentation to have a full clickable cab, and the Su 30MKK has the same silly missiles as the monster-born J 11A!

 

Don’t be surprised if many people just look at this whole topic as crying. If you read my first post I suggest you read through it because in the future you will only torture yourself in this game!


Edited by Rush_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

You were literally describing Flaming Cliffs and MAC.  So there would be no reason to expand Combined Arms when this fits the bill for MAC.

I does when this "simplified" word gets into the mix. But only to discover that it doesn`t after some digging :(

And Su-35 isn`t first on my wish list. I said  "Man the planes we could have then! J-11B,J-15, Various Russian multirole Flankers and Fulcrums.( even Mig-35 and Su-35)"

Obviously Su-35 would be too OP) So i mostly hoped for less outstanding Flanker variants. As long as they are multirole. I`d be happy to play them.


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Do more Cold War BLUFOR modules so they can fit with REDFOR stuff that's actually doable. Preferably on a mid-to-late Cold War era northern/central Germany map.

 

That's my suggestion. 

 

 

  Yep, 70s/80s would have probably been a wiser longterm choice, while still providing access to the star teen fighters and modernish aircraft.

 

9 minutes ago, musolo said:

What you say is that they didn`t have the docomentation for FC3?! Are you sure?

  Search is your friend. It's the box at the top, you can type questions and keywords and it shows you relevant posts.

  • Like 3

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, musolo said:

I does when this "simplified" word gets into the mix. But only to discover that it doesn`t after some digging :(

And Su-35 isn`t first on my wish list. I said  "Man the planes we could have then! J-11B,J-15, Various Russian multirole Flankers and Fulcrums.( even Mig-35 and Su-35)"

Obviously Su-35 would be too OP) So i mostly hoped for less outstanding Flanker variants. As long as they are multirole. I`d be happy to play them.

 

What you have listed airplanes are all secret military equipment. Look what happened to one of the ED employees who was caught with F16 documentation sitting there in jail. Do you seriously think you will see any of the devices listed above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@musolo you seem to be hung up on what you call 'docks' (by which I think you mean documentation, or rather, publicly accessible specifications). You seem to think that some government embargo or prohibition is preventing ED or other to legally sell modules that are realistic. That isn't so. Yes, there was one story in the past where some developer with ties to ED got embroiled in a border/export transgression and that did involve some documentation for the Falcon that was available for sale in the US, but was not allowed to be exported (very much like some encryption software, or, famously, the PowerPC G3 processor).

That doesn't mean that ED can't build realistic modules simply because they would be illegal. They aren't. It means that ED can't build a model that is very close to spec without making up their own data, and that is something they would rather not do. It's not the purported illegality of creating realistic modules (it's not illegal if they used only legal sources and own research), but rather ED unwillingness to simply speculate or fabricate fictional data in lieu of facts.

 

Your idea suggest they do the exact opposite: ED should simply make up everything they don't know by looking at some YouTube videos, slap the result into some CA container, and be done with it. That appears to be strongly against almost everything that ED does, and I think that is why so many people think it's unlikely to happen.

 

Personally, I'm not too happy with CA, because (overlooking the glaring VR bug) the entire package looks amateurish compared to everything else they do. Take the Leo II. Drive it downhill and step on the gas. Marvel at how it accelerates past 200 km/h. When I was in the military, there was no such high-speed tank available, but what do I know about tanks anyhow. Then marvel again how said Leo, weighing 60t and travelling at 230 km/h, gets literally stopped in its tracks by a slender 5 inch birch tree. That's not DCS, that's a bad interns failed project.

 

But I digress. My point isn't so much that CA is deeply flawed (it is), but that what you propose is based on a faulty premise - that ED would be willing to create modules based solely on guesswork and made-up facts (230 km/h dragster Leo II notwithstanding). 

 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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