TZeer Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Some WIP pictures that was posted on the facebook page today:
Vivoune Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 you know you're gonna need it. :D Can't wait to sit my digital arse on it, lovely models, nice fidelity, keep it coming. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
311Gryphon Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 I mean if crap like this can get funded OH MY! That was the dumbest thing I've ever seen! How did that get funded? http://www.youtube.com/user/311Gryphon i7-8700, 32 GB DDR4 3000, GTX 1080 TI 11GB, 240 GB SSD, 2TB HDD, Dual (sometimes Triple) monitor, TM Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, TrackIR [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
beaupower32 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Not bad looking seat. Few things need changing, but all minor. "There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage" [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
AndyE Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Personal preference. Start a poll and ask "Does realism matter" you will get your answer. Does realism matter when it come to the aircraft, yes. Does it matter when it comes to mission design, no. No battle/war in the current theater is realistic outside of Russia vs Georgia. Same goes for any other theater. If it didn't happen historically, it's not realistic. What your most likely thinking of in terms of mission design is plausibility, and to be quite honest I doubt most are looking for 100% plausibility considering most servers use unrealistic teams to "balance" aircraft types and such. You can't kick *** without tanker gas
AndyE Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Seat looks good. At this rate they'll have a full cockpit roughed out in no time. You can't kick *** without tanker gas
OB1 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Does it matter when it comes to mission design, no. Of course it does. Set aside Georgia as we do not have choice in the matter, but we can certainly look at it in terms aircraft pitting. Especially as it is designed to replace aircraft such as the F-16, F-18 and A-10 3rd, and 4th gen aircraft have been happily playing together for decades now we have a new 5th gen that has not even seen combat nor combat proven, you can even consider it still in its development stages. Its the odd ball out. The F-35 represents a giant leap forward from all previous gen aircraft and in my opinion has no place in any multiplayer designed missions as that is all I play and care to design for. I am certainly biased as a student of history enjoy conflicts relating to known participants. The F-35 to me is a big question mark that in reality will probably never see aerial combat and have no use other than airshows.
ED Team NineLine Posted July 8, 2013 ED Team Posted July 8, 2013 will probably never see aerial combat and have no use other than airshows. Some little dust up seems to happen ever few years, I find it highly unlikely that it wont see some sort of aerial combat of some sort, maybe nothing of a challenge, but still... the way the world is, the big boys like to swing their sticks... And the airshow comment... I mean you have seen the load outs this can carry right? Come on... to say all it will do is airshows is just trolling... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Exorcet Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 big question mark that in reality will probably never see aerial combat and have no use other than airshows. Like the missile in your signature. I honestly don't get what the big deal is with a fighter that has seen service. I definitely get the appeal of trying to recreate historic simulations, but there is no reason to look down on hypotheticals. The question of the F-35 is no more of a question than the one around the F-15 vs the Su-27, which has never happened. in my opinion has no place in any multiplayer designed missions as that is all I play and care to design for. I'm much the same, I greatly prefer MP. I can't wait to see F-35's there because that's where they'll be the most interesting. Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files
OB1 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Some little dust up seems to happen ever few years, I find it highly unlikely that it wont see some sort of aerial combat of some sort, maybe nothing of a challenge, but still... I did specify aerial combat as in Air to Air. Considering this aircraft is designed to support the air superiority fighter F-22 it is my opinion it highly likely it will not see aerial combat. Air to Ground... sure.
Snoopy Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 The F-35 to me is a big question mark that in reality will probably never see aerial combat and have no use other than airshows. Sorry but I have to laugh at this comment. Look at the history of the US, you honestly think an ACFT that will be produced in the 1,000s will never see combat? I love my country but we are constantly sticking out nose in others business and the F-35 when operational will be right in the front of it all. PS...before I get bashed for being political I'm not just stating a fact based on US history. I did specify aerial combat as in Air to Air. Considering this aircraft is designed to support the air superiority fighter F-22 it is my opinion it highly likely it will not see aerial combat. Air to Ground... sure. 180 something F-22s compared to thousands of F-35s...again, it'll see air to air combat I'm sure. v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
OB1 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Like the missile in your signature. semantics I honestly don't get what the big deal is with a fighter that has seen service. I definitely get the appeal of trying to recreate historic simulations, but there is no reason to look down on hypotheticals. There is no big deal its opinion. I'm much the same, I greatly prefer MP. I can't wait to see F-35's there because that's where they'll be the most interesting. I'm sure there people that would love to go up against an F-35 in their Mig-21 just for shits and giggles.
OB1 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 180 something F-22s compared to thousands of F-35s...again, it'll see air to air combat I'm sure. Time will tell, send me a pm when it happens.
sobek Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 180 something F-22s compared to thousands of F-35s...again, it'll see air to air combat I'm sure. Given the likely opponents, i wouldn't call it combat. More like assassination. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Exorcet Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 semantics Admittedly yes, I just found it interesting. There is no big deal its opinion. Well there is a reason for the opinion right? I don't have a problem with opinions, but I don't see why it matters that a fighter has been in a conflict or not. I'm sure there people that would love to go up against an F-35 in their Mig-21 just for shits and giggles. You're talking to one. That sounds interesting and it's not something that seems to be focused on a lot. Many times the focus is on the player being the best and the strongest, but the other side can fun as well. The point of the F-35 isn't just to fly it and win. It is (to me) to fly it and struggle and to fly against it and struggle. Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files
Snoopy Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Time will tell, send me a pm when it happens. :doh: Given the likely opponents, i wouldn't call it combat. More like assassination. Well war isn't fair so sure you can call it that. v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
OB1 Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 It is (to me) to fly it and struggle and to fly against it and struggle. That is an admirable quality. Given the likely opponents, i wouldn't call it combat. More like assassination. The hypothetical combat efficiency of the F-35 is of interest to me. I don't suppose anyone has any preliminary combat trial / exercises reports available to share ?
OB1 Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Just found an old media report of questionable credibility.
beaupower32 Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 That is an admirable quality. The hypothetical combat efficiency of the F-35 is of interest to me. I don't suppose anyone has any preliminary combat trial / exercises reports available to share ? Actually I do. "There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage" [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
beaupower32 Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Sorry "There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage" [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ED Team NineLine Posted July 9, 2013 ED Team Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) I love my country but we are constantly sticking out nose in others business and the F-35 when operational will be right in the front of it all. PS...before I get bashed for being political I'm not just stating a fact based on US history. I think you get a pass when you can be directly effected by where that nose is stuck... :) ok that wasnt meant the way it sounded... Edited July 9, 2013 by NineLine Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Snoopy Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 I think you get a pass when you can be directly effected by where those nose is stuck... :) ok that wasnt meant the way it sounded... LOL...:megalol: v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
311Gryphon Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Especially as it is designed to replace aircraft such as the F-16, F-18 and A-10 I am certainly biased as a student of history enjoy conflicts relating to known participants. The F-35 to me is a big question mark that in reality will probably never see aerial combat and have no use other than airshows. Unless it fulfills the roles it is being designed for. Any potential uselessness of the F-35 depends heavily on the designers and builders being almost entirely incompetent. While I don't like the idea of replacing a low and slow bird like the A-10 completely with the F-35, I have to admit that it looks like it could handle a decent amount of the burden and still have some pretty good air to air capabilities. I don't know, it just seems logical that it can be the case. Aside from that, the designers are all liars and cheats if it's only good quality would be an airshow display. History to me isn't just history. It's the future as well. Besides, what good is studying history if you don't apply it to the future (learn the lessons, change behavior now either in reaction to the lessons learned from history or in pro-action to a perceived outcome, achieve goals in the future)? Therefore the F-35 can't necessarily be ignored simply because it isn't a part of our "history". Has it flown in combat? Not at all. Most modern fighters were in development for quite some time before they ever saw combat. All of that being said, it's all completely irrelevant to whether the F-35 should be in DCS or not. And while I can certainly respect the opinions of folks who don't like the idea, I have to go back to may position of "don't buy it". Surely there will be servers that don't allow it to be flown if it becomes a problem. http://www.youtube.com/user/311Gryphon i7-8700, 32 GB DDR4 3000, GTX 1080 TI 11GB, 240 GB SSD, 2TB HDD, Dual (sometimes Triple) monitor, TM Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, TrackIR [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
OB1 Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 I never said it shouldn't be in DCS, it just might be the reason why the kickstarter is doing so poorly if you reference my first post. In terms of history, the F-35 reminds me of the F-4 Phantom... Guns are a thing of the past along with WVR combat.. oops we were wrong.
Recommended Posts