congo Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Congo, I'm curious where all that information came from... Seems like a large volume of information with quite a bit of detail to not have a copyright on it (but I don't see any little © on any of those images). http://www.fas.org/ I would think most of that info was taken from Technical Orders and military documentation. If you research Martin Baker and Escapac and ACES II there is a lot more information to be had. Some of the reading on the Zero Zero systems is quite interesting. We,ve come a long way since they used bungees to fling the pilot from the aircraft. Here are some more interesting tidbits. http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=73&id=36728 Edited July 27, 2009 by congo
vrv Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Pairs would be perfect but they probably won't do it. Let's just hope picking the AH-64, no offense to Longbow fans; its a beautiful slick, that it won't be a huge mistake. We don't have any fast movers. If you were to have the F-15 / F-16 you could pick up a huge HUGE following. Same goes for the Mig-29, Su-27,ect. Moving mud will be great with the A-10 but after that another helo? 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] EtherealN: I will promptly perform a sex change and offer my hand in marriage to whomever
Arclight Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Why not? :D I much prefer rotary to fixed wing, but I seem to be part of a minority. :ermm: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS A-10C: putting the 'art' into 'warthog'. (yes, corny. Sorry.)
claud Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 well if u have the ka-50 and the A-10 that is enough for moving mud... we need a mulitrole plane that can dogfight and CCRP something lol.... i want 9G turns not a 250 knots slow flight :D as i mention before i hate choppers but the ka-50 was done to perfection which is why i bought it , i rarely fly it but i will contribute to DCS cause if they make a F-16/15/18 with such high detail then i will be a happy man . so after the ka-50 and the A-10 i think we should have some dogfights with a jet that can go faster then the speed of sound. 1
L4key Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I wouldn't be in favour of launching two aircraft at once whether fixed or rotary. Surely the best thing about BS is the realism and depth, by having multiple a/c it would risk the focus and could potentially lose realism. (remember that sim on the Amiga that you could fly nearly 100 aircraft??!!) It's a pain to wait each time but the A10 will provide some fixed wing fun. I do agree with the poster before though that it seems a shame to go straight back to rotary after the A10. Stick a multi role fast jet in there after the A10 and I'll be more than happy by then to go back to rotary!
nemises Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I guess it could be a more efficient way to do it though... Think of the increased technology ED will have to develop and test to enable Air to Air or Air to Ground radar for example.... The iteration of the A10 makes sense as it does not require ALL of that tech, just incremental updating to the engine..(presumably?) ... As the Modules tick by, additional functionality will be added in , such as advanced A2A missile logic, or multi-seat logic (bot AI and multiplayer), ground radr etc... And so, for example, to implement the F16c to the Level of EXTREME awesomeness that the KA50 is might take 5 or 10 times (?) as long as to implement the A10a/c or AH64a .. so it makes sense from that perspective to devlop the modules that are within reach first (low hanging fruit and all that) ..at least , thats what I rekon.. Edited July 28, 2009 by nemises
L4key Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Good point, the KA50 is pretty much WW2 technology(!) compared to something like an F16. The level of information required would be mental, though having done LOMAC this would hopefully give a headstart. All speculation must be funny for ED to read... Good publicity though that BS has been such an appetite wetter.
Kenan Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Good point, the KA50 is pretty much WW2 technology(!) compared to something like an F16. Every modern semi-auto handgun (enter your popular brand here) is pretty much based on the same 1900's design of their predeccessors (Colt 1911, Walther PP/PPK) yet, they are and will always be effective. Ka-50's tech may be 'old' compared to F16 and Apache but it'll do the job it's been designed for and that's not fighting long range SAMs but killing infantry, buldings, light armored vehicles and tanks. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
L4key Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Every modern semi-auto handgun (enter your popular brand here) is pretty much based on the same 1900's design of their predeccessors (Colt 1911, Walther PP/PPK) yet, they are and will always be effective. Ka-50's tech may be 'old' compared to F16 and Apache but it'll do the job it's been designed for and that's not fighting long range SAMs but killing infantry, buldings, light armored vehicles and tanks. I didn't infer that was a bad thing, I love the KA50! However, extrapolate your logic and you could say that all modern cars are just the same basic design as the first wheel? I get your point though.
Ivonq Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I like this idea, but I prefer a highly detailed Apache AH-64A. It will be a major success as everyone can relate to it with the recent wars. It will expand the target group, which will suite the commercial needs of ED. Although a double pack would be sweet Apache AH-64A and MI-24 or MI-28N. Edited July 28, 2009 by Ivonq
claud Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 fine i'll settle for an AH-64 but only if it can handle 2 ppl ( ie duble seater ).
Recommended Posts