Frostiken Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 And before anyone says it, for the love of god, yes, the F-15 *does have* a fly-by-wire system of sorts. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Zakatak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I want DCS: Hornet! Just not... DCS Super Hornet. I don't like the E/F version at all, too big, too bulky, too ugly. Since the game is set in 2008 Georgia, the F/A-18C will still be in service, and that would be a funner sim in my opinion. :p Or perhaps we can have the A/C/E versions at the sacrifice of a little fidelity, I would be okay with that.
Frostiken Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Funny that you say that because it appears the majority of people are against a non-Superhornet F/A-18 due to how terribly limited it is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Zakatak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 As a Canadian, i'm naturally biased toward the non-Super side of the Hornet. CF-18 for the win. It looks better and manoeuvres better, and I believe it has a longer ferry range. Don't quote me on the last part, all I know is that in a simulated dogfight, the Super Hornet had to bug out because it was bingo on fuel. Personal opinion, feel free to prove me wrong. This isn't my area of expertise.
OB1 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I would certainly enjoy flying such an aircraft in DCS. :pilotfly:
OB1 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I'd now like to see a poll showing interest between the F/A-18E and F/A-18F.. I know there is allot of strange people here that like and only play single player :P but I'd certainly love to fly cooperatively online in a tandem seat aircraft..
Bearitall Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Hell Yea...F4E with a tailhook would be great...I love this jet...:thumbup: www.virtualtuskegeeairmen.com
Dozer1606688093 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Fixed wings s*cks.. Apache all the way! :D [sIGPIC]http://imageshack.com/a/img202/730/vguserbarmask.gif[/sIGPIC]
digitaljjd Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Fixed wings s*cks.. Apache all the way! :D The irony here is, that the Apache has fixed wings, removable...but fixed none the less.
Zakatak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I'd now like to see a poll showing interest between the F/A-18E and F/A-18F.. I know there is allot of strange people here that like and only play single player :P but I'd certainly love to fly cooperatively online in a tandem seat aircraft.. Your onto something, has that been done before? Online tandem? Rather then argue which version of the Hornet to have, let's just get 'em all! @the guy who cried Apache, never flown a helicopter sim before (where the hell is Black Shark?!) but I would love to try!
104th_Crunch Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 A non super hornet is more likely due to less of it being classified. Online tandem I believe is possible in FSX, but what will it be like when you need to fly it alone? It may be alright in that all the functions are repeated for the single seat any way. Dozer, I want to virtually smack you for that comment, but I like Killswitch too much :)
Nightmare Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 281 page 2.800 Replies 152.000 Views ......................If this is not Passion........ :love::wub: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] http://www.69squadrone.it S.O: Win7 64bit MB: ASUS 1366 P6X58D-E (Audio card integrated) CPU: INTEL Core i7 950 3.06Ghz 8MB GPU: GTX470 Gainward 1280MB GDDR5 "Golden Sample" HD: Western Digital 500GB WD5000AAKS 7200rpm 16MB RAM: DDR3 1333Mhz PC10666 6GB Kingston Accessories:TrackIR5 6DOF, Hotas Cougar.
Dozer1606688093 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Dozer, I want to virtually smack you for that comment, but I like Killswitch too much :) Yes, I can agree that my comment was a bit harsh there. I was hoping that the next module would be a chopper though, but who knows, maybe after the upcoming fighter module we can enjoy a helo again. I just find it more interesting with helos than planes. ;) Yep, It's a great band :thumbup: [sIGPIC]http://imageshack.com/a/img202/730/vguserbarmask.gif[/sIGPIC]
Zakatak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I got FSX: Acceleration for the Hornet, but i'm not satisfied :p By the way, if this is a F/A-18C module, can we play as multiple countries? US, Canada, Swiss, etc. Some will say the CF-18 is the A version, but we uprated them to what is basically the C version (APG-73 + AMRAAM compatibility). If we get to play as Canada, hopefully we enjoy some North Pole combat, fight off Ruskies coming over the top of the Earth to hit the US.
Jona33 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Yes, I can agree that my comment was a bit harsh there. I was hoping that the next module would be a chopper though, but who knows, maybe after the upcoming fighter module we can enjoy a helo again. I just find it more interesting with helos than planes. ;) Yep, It's a great band :thumbup: Heli's do provide a bit more of a challenge and are more fun to fly but we do need some super fast jet fighters as well. After the fighter i'd like a helo too. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
Krippz Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I got FSX: Acceleration for the Hornet, but i'm not satisfied :p By the way, if this is a F/A-18C module, can we play as multiple countries? US, Canada, Swiss, etc. Some will say the CF-18 is the A version, but we uprated them to what is basically the C version (APG-73 + AMRAAM compatibility). If we get to play as Canada, hopefully we enjoy some North Pole combat, fight off Ruskies coming over the top of the Earth to hit the US. You reallllyyy need to get the VRS Hornet. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
Haggart Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I got FSX: Acceleration for the Hornet, but i'm not satisfied :p By the way, if this is a F/A-18C module, can we play as multiple countries? US, Canada, Swiss, etc. Some will say the CF-18 is the A version, but we uprated them to what is basically the C version (APG-73 + AMRAAM compatibility). If we get to play as Canada, hopefully we enjoy some North Pole combat, fight off Ruskies coming over the top of the Earth to hit the US. Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death I Shall Fear No Evil For I am at 80000 feet and Climbing. I doubt we would get the scenario... but it would get us a hell playground of missions "This is Crystal Palace, we've multiple red birds in the air" - SIOP's-Combat in the polar region, fly under the radar around Elmendorf, ... Kinda scary, but also very intense! There's no "Overkill". There's only "open fire!" and "time to reload". Specs: i7-980@4,2Ghz, 12GB RAM, 2x GTX480, 1x 8800GTS, X-Fi HD, Cougar, Warthog, dcs-F16-pedals
Frostiken Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) 80,000 feet and climbing? DCS: Space Shuttle Discovery? PS: Any aircraft with a thrust/weight ratio lower than 1 under typical loading cannot be considered 'fast' :/ F/A-18C? Might as well be DCS: Wright Flyer, psha! Edited June 23, 2011 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Zakatak Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Any aircraft is better then the F-18 for a given situation, but no aircraft is better then the F-18 for any given situation. That wasn't contradictory. Read it twice. If you didn't see it the second time, read it again.
Frostiken Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) That's also quite a claim without a lot to back it up... No aircraft is going to be the 'best' at everything - the F/A-18C has a more powerful radar than the F-16, but the F-16 is far more nimble and has a greater thrust/weight ratio that would tear the F/A-18 to bits in ACM - so how do you decide which one's better? :) I would argue that an F-16 is better than an F/A-18C in most situations, due to a few things such as more up-to-date avionics, as well as the fact that it isn't nearly as crippled as the F/A-18 is in regards to range and loiter time. Ultimately though, DCS is about air-to-ground warfare and is why I highly, HIGHLY doubt there will ever be an air interceptor study-sim - because nobody wants to fly around waiting for radar contacts to fire some missiles off at, and then turn around and go home - ED has spent too much time on all the ground warfare stuff to try to push a game where all you can do is ineffectually strafe them with your gun and dodge SAMs. So we don't need a fighter that is good 'in any random scenario', we need a fighter that is good in most scenarios, but is extremely capable air-to-ground. So I wouldn't take EITHER of those sad little toys :) Also, if you were to face a USAF F-16 against an RCAF F/A-18C, the F-16 would obliterate the F/A-18. Nothing against the RCAF, but unless Canada's built their own radar package, the F/A-18s radar is going to be far less powerful than USAF versions simply because that's how export aircraft work. We nerf the **** out of planes, and any sort of defense item sold to another country has been meticulously detailed - if we sold you a countermeasures pod, you can guarantee that any flaw in the tuning agility or limitations in how it works has been noted so it can be exploited. Edited June 23, 2011 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Not only is this not true, it is downright heresy of they who sucketh too much to do air to air as their main dish. Frostiken banned for heresy! :D PS: No, I'm not actually banning Frostiken, chill :P Ultimately though, DCS is about air-to-ground warfare and is why I highly, HIGHLY doubt there will ever be an air interceptor study-sim - because nobody wants to fly around waiting for radar contacts to fire some missiles off at, and then turn around and go home - ED has spent too much time on all the ground warfare stuff to try to push a game where all you can do is ineffectually strafe them with your gun and dodge SAMs. [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
Frostiken Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Yeah I'll believe that when I see it :D I'm not saying air-to-air isn't fun, but if that was the only thing you could do, what would be the point? Take the campaigns, for example. Imagine you were in an F-15C instead of an A-10C - would the campaign really matter? Fly to X, shoot down MiGs. The only weapons you can pick from are AIM-9Ms, AIM-9Xs (maybe), and AIM-120Cs. Yeah, I'm not feeling it. It would undoubtedly have its moments, but for that to be the only thing the module really offers... nah. Air-to-ground presents far more possibilities than air-to-air really does. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Uhm, how's that drifferent from 'fly to X, shoot drop some bombs'? Ok, so you have 5 types of bombs and 6 types of missiles ... and? What's your target doing other than just sitting there waiting to get smacked? :D Certainly a pure fighter module would have had its work cut out for it though ... you want to get AI that works very well to make it both interesting and challenging (you can achieve challenging without making it interesting easily enough, just give them super-everything. The real trick is in the tactics etc). [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
Frostiken Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Uhm, how's that drifferent from 'fly to X, shoot drop some bombs'? I would argue that there's far, far more ways to approach an air-to-ground situation, multiplied by your various weapons with their own delivery methods and specialized purposes, whereas there's only really three approaches to air-to-air - BVR missiles, WVR missiles, and ACM (and WVR / ACM tends to be the same thing). I also think part of the reason I'm turned off by this is because most of the excitement is going to be had in WVR engagements, and I got tired of aerial gunfights in WW2 combat sims, where that's all aerial combat *is*. Edited June 23, 2011 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts