Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
#4425359 - 06/09/18 08:02 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Not crazy = "the flight model is spectacular", "I love it"
Not crazy = Fanboy, I lucked out and got the plane I wanted, I don't have to tell you that's the real reason, I can go to my safe place now.

It's people like this who caused massive delays, numerous modules that nobody wanted, and occasional fixes like auxiliary relief valve to outboard flaperons causing momentary surge to opposite stabilizer fixed, worthless and completely unnoticeable.

That's the problem with no competition, I don't recall what they were called, I think "fighterops", I wish there were someone else or a team similar to BMS were developing in parallel.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4425361 - 06/09/18 08:06 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
IceecI Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
IceecI  Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
Member

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
"Air to air missiles is the next big one. They're going to need to rework missile dynamics for the Hornet and F-16. I can't claim I am a missile expert, but I don't think I can ever hit an enemy fighter at 10nm with an AIM-120 regardless of altitude, speed or launch angles. So while our expectations may be off I still can't imagine what we have in DCS is even close to realistic."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

Maybe ED's good missile guidance system was, but because that was subject to change, in the end, it wasn't.

Or maybe they used this video for guidance data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LjN3UclYzU

Who knows...


Give a man fish and he gets food, give a man a fishing rod and he asks for another one.
#4425376 - 06/09/18 09:29 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Faulkner]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Faulkner that's quite the change in attitude in 7 posts where in your earlier post you claimed you did not want to' stir the pot', to this

Originally Posted by Faulkner
Not crazy = "the flight model is spectacular", "I love it"
Not crazy = Fanboy, I lucked out and got the plane I wanted, I don't have to tell you that's the real reason, I can go to my safe place now.

It's people like this who caused massive delays, numerous modules that nobody wanted, and occasional fixes like auxiliary relief valve to outboard flaperons causing momentary surge to opposite stabilizer fixed, worthless and completely unnoticeable.l.


smile





#4425438 - 06/10/18 03:12 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I don't think I can ever hit an enemy fighter at 10nm with an AIM-120 regardless of altitude, speed or launch angles. So while our expectations may be off I still can't imagine what we have in DCS is even close to realistic.


Flogger from this it sounds like you are not certain whether or not you can hit an aircraft from 10nm out

I have only the Flaming Cliffs F 15 that carries the AIM 120 and I can hit an aircraft 10 - 15 nm most every time with a AIM 120, at 20 nm not so much, but I may not be using the equipment correctly. Yet

One of the difficulties I'm having is I do not get a valid shot cue until the aircraft is 15 nm out. So maybe user error? smile



#4425445 - 06/10/18 04:35 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
I don't, unless there is some reversion to "I wanted the Hornet, so there can be nothing wrong with it", "ED can do no wrong", and there is a pie in the sky, and anybody who says otherwise gets chastised. On a slightly different but related note, I have agreed for a significant while about the comments about missile behavior generally, and problems getting shot down too easily at low altitude by just about anything, those are quite correct posts, I doubt those are realistic, particularly the former, these are what really need to be fixed.

#4425461 - 06/10/18 07:09 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Ah smile

I can think of one thing ED has done wrong, so phew, I'm don't fit into that group. ED could put a 'relfy' option in the mission escape menu smile



#4425463 - 06/10/18 07:15 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: bisher]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted by bisher
.....ED could put a 'relfy' option in the mission escape window smile


LShift-R

Nate

#4425465 - 06/10/18 07:21 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Nate]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted by Nate
Originally Posted by bisher
.....ED could put a 'relfy' option in the mission escape window smile


LShift-R

Nate


Thanks Nate smile



#4425470 - 06/10/18 07:59 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: bisher]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,080
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,080
US
Originally Posted by bisher
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I don't think I can ever hit an enemy fighter at 10nm with an AIM-120 regardless of altitude, speed or launch angles. So while our expectations may be off I still can't imagine what we have in DCS is even close to realistic.


Flogger from this it sounds like you are not certain whether or not you can hit an aircraft from 10nm out

I have only the Flaming Cliffs F 15 that carries the AIM 120 and I can hit an aircraft 10 - 15 nm most every time with a AIM 120, at 20 nm not so much, but I may not be using the equipment correctly. Yet

One of the difficulties I'm having is I do not get a valid shot cue until the aircraft is 15 nm out. So maybe user error? smile


Is that against a fighter though? A you sure you don't have it set to metric as well? I don't recall but I believe there is an option for the F-15.

#4425480 - 06/10/18 10:36 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: bisher]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Re: bisher, play one side or the other, but not both, can't respect that.

Last edited by Faulkner; 06/10/18 10:40 PM.
#4425545 - 06/11/18 12:37 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 75
BrettT Offline
Junior Member
BrettT  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 75
Louisiana
Quote
Is that against a fighter though? A you sure you don't have it set to metric as well? I don't recall but I believe there is an option for the F-15.


I am not saying the AM-120 model is correct, but I I haven't had too much trouble hitting fighters in the 10-15nm range with the F-15. Typically I will wait until they are 17-18nm before firing. This is in a head-on engagement. Typically I will use the Constant Peg mission for the F-15. So the engagement is against Su-27s and Mig 29s. I suspect the range may differ in a trailing engagement though where the missile would have to "catch" the target

#4425559 - 06/11/18 01:48 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Is that against a fighter though? A you sure you don't have it set to metric as well? I don't recall but I believe there is an option for the F-15.


Good points Flogger yes fighters but mig 15s and 21s for the most, and I'd wondered if my HUD read out is metric

I'll check my options, I was not sure how but will have a look



#4425565 - 06/11/18 02:08 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Faulkner]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by usafmtl40
But Ice here is the deal.....I am not getting into that kind of jackassery anymore. If someone makes a statement like that, then live and let live. Back on my other account here going back to 1999 (and even being a moderator here) my fuse was short and anger swift. I grew the #%&*$# up and realized I was being a total dick-wad in some cases. If someone likes it that much and says something like that, then so be it. I would rather talk about simming, flying, killing bad guys and breaking their #%&*$#.

"Jackassery"? If you can tolerate the guys that makes statements like that, why can you not tolerate those that seek truth and accuracy in making statements? Seems like you're only interested in one side of the argument and that's fine, but it seems like you also think that the other side has no right to post and that's just messed up.

Start a thread about simming, killing stuff, or weapons employment and you'll find less of these types of discussion but ask what you did on your 1st and 3rd post on this thread and you're annoyed with the result of your questions? "What do you think of it?" is just asking for these types of responses.


Originally Posted by Faulkner
It's people like this who caused massive delays, numerous modules that nobody wanted, and occasional fixes like auxiliary relief valve to outboard flaperons causing momentary surge to opposite stabilizer fixed, worthless and completely unnoticeable.

What do you mean "people like this"? Are you implying ED listens to customer feedback to guide them as to which module to develop next? Because I don't think that happens at all. Delays and module selection have all been due to ED's incompetence or whatever reason they want to use to hand-wave it away; nothing to do with their customer base at all. If it were the case, ED would be developing a DC engine now. smile


- Ice
#4425597 - 06/11/18 04:01 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
I think ED has duped a lot of people into thinking that their modules are closer to the real thing than they really are. On rare occasions, I have seen pilots familiar with a particular aicraft, who have no affiliation with ED, more or less chuckle or scoff, suggesting that there is still a huge gap between what is and what people hope it is. I have seen many posters who ask about minute details and subtlties about various systems that don't in fact exist in the sim. That's the fooler game that ED has played, and it may be a component of the incompetence part. The lack of more fully developed missile system behavior as the most glaring example is unacceptable at this point, that's number one, two and three in development priority, and although I play BMS less frequently these days, you get a sense of a more realistic air to air environment, i.e. multiple hits to down an aircraft, correct geometry and range, missiles or guns, despite deficiencies in the graphics.

I disagree with you completely that it is incompetence that drives ED's ludicrous module selection, I think they know exactly what they are doing. They have a large community of, well I won't say puppets because that would be politically incorrect, but clones and zombies, who will accept just about anything, because they believe that everything that ED produces is nothing short of perfection, with everything modeled correctly down to the smallest detail. I understand the "fun" aspect, but because of that they can draw on a large number of people, and produce basically whatever they want, irrespective whether it is of any relevance, as well as many different aircraft with similar characteristics, with low development time and expense. In fact, those same people will go to great extents to defend them, like they're doing what they can, they will go bankrupt and other such nonsense. While it is correct that ED pays no attention to their customer base, your reasoning is incorrect, it is exactly because they know that customer base will accept just about anything, which is what makes it relevant and gives them the latitude to do so. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you sell 100,000 copies of something worldwide, at $50 a print, you're okay, to them it's just a money game. The irony is, had they taken the direction of spending more time enhancing existing modules for airplanes people really want, which are now years off at best if in fact they happen, and staying within the original concept behind LOMAC: Modern Air Combat, the sales numbers would probably have been about the same, and they may have attracted a larger customer base.

#4425616 - 06/11/18 05:14 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Faulkner]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Faulkner
I think ED has duped a lot of people into thinking that their modules are closer to the real thing than they really are.

Agreed. See my other thread here regarding misleading or mis-selling their customers.



Originally Posted by Faulkner
I disagree with you completely that it is incompetence that drives ED's ludicrous module selection, I think they know exactly what they are doing.
While it is correct that ED pays no attention to their customer base, your reasoning is incorrect, it is exactly because they know that customer base will accept just about anything, which is what makes it relevant and gives them the latitude to do so.

I see no evidence that ED knows what they're doing regarding module selection. Even if ED knew their customer base will buy anything they make, it does not mean that throwing darts at a dartboard with pictures of aircraft is "knowing what they're doing."


Originally Posted by Faulkner
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you sell 100,000 copies of something worldwide, at $50 a print, you're okay, to them it's just a money game.

Then how do you explain the recent announcement of FC4 comprising of DCS-level airframes dumbed down to FC-level?


Originally Posted by Faulkner
The irony is, had they taken the direction of spending more time enhancing existing modules for airplanes people really want, which are now years off at best if in fact they happen, and staying within the original concept behind LOMAC: Modern Air Combat, the sales numbers would probably have been about the same, and they may have attracted a larger customer base.

Agreed. I've scratched my head for a long time with regards to this. If ED did know what they're doing, they'd have chosen the staple aircraft to start with -- the Hornet, the Tomcat, the Apache, bring up the Sukhois and MiGs to DCS-level -- these airframes are no-brainers with regards to mass appeal and marketability. Instead, they waste time building the L-39? They allow a 3rd-party to make the Tomcat?

If ED had more direction, even if they took the same amount of time, I would wager that the community would be in a much better place and even if they didn't have such a large customer base, they'd have a more understanding and patient pool of customers.


- Ice
#4425669 - 06/11/18 08:41 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
I think they choreograph their choice of modules more than people think and more than they let on, particularly propeller driven aircraft and helos, which incorporate very similar technologies, there is little turnaround time, no radar or minimal avionics. I think they push out what they can the fastest, "lazy development". If you've built one, you've built them all, again aimed at money generation, slang "quick buck". If less people had bought that stuff, it may have had a counter intuitive effect.

I don't know anything about FC4, thought it was a joke at first, I read quickly about it a few weeks ago then forgot about it, thought initially it was a further development of FC3, you just reminded me it's actually a downgrade. I don't know the reason for it, but I would favor it's another vehicle for making easy money, since you're removing complexity which is always an easier path. I don't think they're doing it out of their goodness, to help the poor dears who don't want to deal with all the systems to alleviate some kind of moral dilemma, since most advanced models already are ready to fly, which I assume is what most people are interested in, if you want to get to a specific subsystem or armament such as in A/G, it's just a few additional button presses away. And in fact, in some ways, the F-18C is still at a very basic stage.

I agree with your comments about aircraft that were unequivocally deserving of further refinement, except you neglected to mention the F-15C, which although does not have a very pleasing cockpit to look at, it is certainly or originally was the flagship of all air superiority aircraft for the longest while, it was developed for the MiG-25, and indeed the other aircraft were developed for it. I think you wouldn't necessarily have to integrate all the IFF modes, to reduce development time and probably extreme, unnecessary complexity, but it's real role was just one, and that was to intercept, or escort, other aircraft. The current generation of Su's and MiG's especially with regard to their cockpit bear little resemblance to the original FC3 aircraft, probable lack of available information for these systems, displays and HUD, of course complexity (aversion to complexity), may have dampened or at least contributed to lack of enthusiasm for further refinement of those aircraft.

#4425677 - 06/11/18 09:25 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
I agree with your "easy money" theory for the most part, but it falls flat on FC4. Sure, it might be easy enough to dumb down an already-existing module and then sell it again, but I don't think FC4 will be as "easy money" as they think it would be since these aircraft already exist as DCS-level. Remember, the main reason FC3 is such a hit is because you cannot get those aircraft anywhere else; this clearly won't be the case for FC4 so while they might be able to push it out the door sooner, I doubt it will bring them good money.

As for the choice of modules, I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve. Didn't they just stumble onto WWII due to a bad deal? Not really sure how that transpired as I wasn't paying attention at that time and have little interest in old warbirds. Then again, aren't most of the older aircraft/helos 3rd-party projects anyway?

If you wish to give ED any sort of credit for any sort of percieved brilliance, simply look at how their DCS 2.5 release is going -- Wags having to "promise" a release date, the software being pushed out the door in an unpolished state just to meet the "promise", an estimated 1-2 week turnaround time between beta and release that turned out to be a couple of months, and so on and so forth.... brilliant? Probably so if you take each part on it's own. Beautiful eye candy. Good FM on modules. Not having to fiddle with MS-DOS windows to update your software. But the whole? Broken stuff are still broken. An unexpected increase in RAM requirements. Microstutters still existing on certain hardware configurations.


- Ice
#4425685 - 06/11/18 10:08 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
I don't know how to characterize anything I've said about ED to this point as being complimentary. Some of their development is good, but their marketing is better. Their brilliance seems to be in providing empty promises and false expectations. There are entire threads about things which are completely imaginary.They just push modules out the door, rebranding and repackaging the same old thing, to make a quick buck to what they perceive as a gullible audience. I've read where there are people who buy the same module twice, I couldn't begin to make any sense of that, whether it's for Steam or not. I don't know anything about FC4 or its purpose.

#4425692 - 06/11/18 10:48 PM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: Faulkner]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
bisher Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
bisher  Offline
I'll be your Huckleberry
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,731
Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted by Faulkner
There are entire threads about things which are completely imaginary.


Oh? smile



#4425702 - 06/12/18 12:08 AM Re: So Who Has the Hornet? [Re: usafmtl40]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Faulkner Offline
Junior Member
Faulkner  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
You should be familiar bisher since you probably started many of them.

Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Star Wars IX Final trailer
by Chaz. 10/22/19 01:48 AM
CoD MW Article
by Rick_Rawlings. 10/21/19 06:15 PM
Time marches on
by No105_Archie. 10/21/19 03:02 PM
Why Looney Tunes is great for history buffs
by PanzerMeyer. 10/20/19 11:05 PM
IJN Kaga found.
by NH2112. 10/19/19 10:32 PM
Grouch (Joker Parady)
by Arthonon. 10/19/19 02:19 PM
Nike vs B-17
by KraziKanuK. 10/18/19 08:30 PM
Grouch
by Chaz. 10/18/19 01:49 PM
How to pi$$ off Londoners...
by Chucky. 10/17/19 12:16 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0