Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] GBU-54 for Hornet ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by med-taha View Post
    Isn't that a bit contradictory? to Tag it as (NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR)
    A year ago, Wags mentioned that they don't have any data about the GBU-54 but he didn't mention that this is unrealistic.
    but as we see Right now They have DATA so why not now?!.
    Please ED make it happen!
    Thanks
    screen:
    Oh look at that

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      It is not moot, but totally valid point, and you have a choice, you don't fly against those units unless you have an AI to fly more modern ones or you can't come up with scenario that matches those units... Be it a kazakhstan air force or some other that still operates with such aircrafts...
      Oh brilliant, I do have a choice, I just have the choice not to it, fantastic. I also said peer-to-peer, and there's still an up to 40 year gap.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      As said, make what you can with limited options, but if not realistically possible, bad thing.
      You're not even addressing the point at all, you're basically just saying "deal with it".

      For full-fidelity aircraft there's a 40 year gap, fantastic, the same gap between 3rd gen and 5th gen. And apart from the A-10C II and Kiowa there's nothing else full-fidelity, peer-to-peer of an appropriate era, and they're at least 30 years out of date.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      So bending the time rules regardless is not realistic, but denying a technically compatible and usable weapons to be used for proper airframes in missions where they would be available is then a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?
      Our actual Hornet doesn't have a single clue what APKWS or GBU-54s are, because they didn't exist at the time.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      It doesn't make problems, you simply do not make any missions past the year the weapons are on service, you keep them disabled and they don't matter to you.
      Yes they do, the problem is lack of consistency and no era past the 70s is consistent for high fidelity aircraft, like at all. How does adding things from the post 2010s solve that issue? (It does the opposite).

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      F-4 will come, MiG-23MLA is coming, MiG-29A exist, A-10A is there, F-15C is old, Sea Harrier is coming... There will be more matching aircrafts in future, but it doesn't matter to modern times eras...
      The F-4E is on indefinite hold, I'm not holding up much hope for the MiG-23MLA and Sea Harrier. The MiG-29, A-10A and F-15C are all low-fidelity and simplified...

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      So, our Hornet is not same in 2020-2021 as in DCS?
      USN can have it out of service in boneyard, but there are countries operating that exact model even today, and next 10 years...
      Is our aircraft supposed to represent a Hornet from 2005? If yes, why is it modernised with 1-2 2010+ weapons and not others? What about avionics or other upgrades? Whatever they might be.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      Yes, the issue is that forum is full of people wanting ultra realism by denying weapons that are compatible, but are not willing to accept that they love unrealistic gameplay when it makes them feel good...
      And you're still evading the point. If I set-up a peer-to-peer mission with the A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C I can't do it without having some time travelling going on, the aircraft eras between REDFOR and BLUFOR are all over the place. I cannot do it. And having the choice not to it and deal with it as you said above is a pretty poor answer.

      My only option is to set-up a scenario where I take these post 2000s aircraft and put them up against a force at least 20 years out of date (so not peer), or make a fictional conflict between GREENFOR, or have BLUE on BLUE...

      There isn't another option. I either time travel, or I don't do it at all...

      Think about it this way, if we wanted to make a WWII mission, that would put the aircraft era centred around the 1940s, if people wanted WWII that's what they would want yeah? However, for our current BLUFOR, it's the equivalent of taking an Fw 190 up against the F-4E Phantom II - it's the same age gap. WWII players probably would think that kind of sucks, and isn't realistic at all, why is it any different from what I'm talking about? Only they get peer aircraft, so they can set-up a realistic, peer-to-peer mission of a consistent era, current BLUFOR cannot. Only thing we have is the GREENFOR JF-17...

      And if you want to enforce realistic scenarios, feel free to ask ED to get rid of the mission editor, sounds like a good idea (not).

      The aircraft should be representative, the scenarios are up to you. That's what DCS has always been about. I mean at the moment the Viggen is totally map-less, so Heatblur should delete it, right?

      Seeing as the Cold War didn't go hot and seeing as we don't have a Korea, Vietnam or Iraq map, it might get a bit dull fast with the current assets if you want to keep things strictly realistic, sound like a good idea? Otherwise you're only choice is to set-up asymmetric missions, that aren't peer-to-peer...

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      Well, future tells more... Maybe some weapons manufacturers invent new weapons and sell them to current operators in the future?
      So implement weapons that are WIP in real life? So the development cycle never stops? Until all the legacy Hornets are gone.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      But it is not intended to be 2005 year
      Is it not?

      Originally posted by Wags View Post
      There have been a lot of questions regarding what sensors and weapons will be available at the launch of the early access DCS: F/A-18C Hornet. This decision is based on balancing a great, first experience, while getting quickly into the hands of those prefer early access adoption. We realize that early access is not for everyone, but for many, it is. If you prefer a completed product, we ask that you wait for the final release. Take that time to monitor previews and early access reports to make an informed purchase.

      We believe that starting with the more “simple” systems at early access roll-out allows a more shallow learning curve at the start. By then adding new systems gradually, it introduces the Hornet’s sensors and weapons in a more structured manner… much like what a real Hornet pilot goes through when learning the aircraft. This also allows us more time to fully develop the more complex systems in a way that delivers the most realistic experience possible.

      Note that this is all very much subject to change for our mid-2000s F/A-18C USN Hornet.
      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      It is the variant of that era that can be flown 2005+ missions, not restricted to 2005 only as some people want to argue (and yet they don't as they think they have no choices).
      Sure, you do what you want with it, I don't care what mission you take it into, it's completely up to you, as it should be. If you keep it realistic though, against a peer faction (like Russia or China), you're going to run into problems fast when you see that there's basically nothing consistent or comprehensive. I mean what if you want to set up a mission from 2005 with peer 2005 assets? Oh wait you can't? Because there isn't a single peer REDFOR asset that represents the same year? They all peak at the mid-to-late 80s? Save for a few Chinese ships?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      How far? So far as you can technically present them to be possible...
      So a potentially endless development cycle. And you're just going to assume that absolutely nothing was upgraded or changed?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      So either we deny technically anyone ever flying any module outside the mission year that module is presenting (developers pick that one year, one year only), or we accept technically capable weapons on all airframes and let the gamers decide what is their simulator...
      *Weapons that our Hornet never fielded, nor existed at the time, and was over half a decade before they came, and over a decade before they actually found their way onto a legacy Hornet...

      And close to literally "Let me have all the weapons, or get rid of the mission editor", why bother modelling a specific year at that point?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      Full technical names, years and all to be used in filters and such... Already done mostly.
      Meh-ish, apart from some SAMs full names, most are basically absent, and I can only think of one unit that has the year explicitly specified in the unit listing.

      I guess what I mean is instead of just T-72B -> T-72B obr.1989. Instead of FF 1135M "Rezky" -> Krivak II-class FF (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik-M" SKR). I'll make a wish for it later or something.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      So arguing with logic that is broken to begin with....
      Logic isn't broken just because it disagrees with you. Our Hornet is supposed to represent a USN F/A-18C of the mid-2000s, so isn't it logical that it represents a USN Hornet of the mid-2000s?

      What's broken logic about that? There's nothing about scenarios in there at all. Just that the Hornet, is supposed to represent a USN one, as it was, in the mid-2000s... What's the problem here?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      It is 100% realistic that 2017 (IIRC) Our exact hornet flew combat missions with APKWS. No modifications, no changes, updates etc...
      Our exact Hornet? The only US Hornet I can find with APKWS was a USMC one in 2017, you're telling me it wasn't upgraded at all? I mean, a whole decade has passed...

      And I'll say it again: "our mid-2000s USN F/A-18C"

      And great, now we have 2017 stuff going up against Cold War stuff from the 80s, and no choice to have it any other way, while keeping it peer-to-peer and historically authentic... Sure I can limit weapons, it's still a time travelling aircraft, with time travelling avionics, and last I checked, there's nothing I can do about that...

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      In 2030 the same hornet is still in service on many countries. Likely without any upgrades at all, but flying with new compatible weapons.
      Is "likely" your personal opinion?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      And correct if I am wrong, doesn't even today some countries operate with MiG-21Bis, even MiG-15Bis?
      That's why I said peer-to-peer...

      Just because a WWII era Type XXI U-Boat was still around and in service in 1980, doesn't mean it's peer-to-peer going up against a 688, ironically that's the approximate age gap between current full fidelity fixed-wing REDFOR, and our current mid-2000s Hornet...

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      USN retired our hornet already, but there are current operators for that same one...
      Let's have it again: "For our mid-2000s USN Hornet"

      Not having a Hornet that other nations use is a pain, I get it, in an ideal world we'd have multiple variants spanning multiple eras and operators. But if you want to approximate another Hornet, we don't have a choice but to work with what we've got - usually by restricting weapons and not much else. At least for other operators there are different liveries.

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      So either we have acceptance for realistic weapons loadouts, flexibility in the years, or we go full ahead to non-negotiable single year modules without any changes to mix or alter years, countries, branches, politics in Weapons or aircrafts.
      Meaning, we forget such things as "simulator".
      Again, it's either we have every feasible future weapon the platform operates, or ED has to get rid of the mission editor... Sounds like such a great move.

      And if you want flexibility in the years, why doesn't that apply to avionics? Why just weapons, in fact, why bother modelling a specific aircraft at all?

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

      As only way that dream will happen is that ED restricts everything to one year, example 1989 and nothing outside that is not allowed by any means...
      Rubbish, you see how it says "of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships"? It doesn't say anything about what scenario you choose or what missions you fly, zip, none whatsoever.

      And again, if I want to set-up a historically authentic mission, peer-to-peer, with full fidelity aircraft, I can't do it. I don't have a choice, there's always going to be some degree of time travel going on, it's not ideal but it's the closest I've got. You can chalk that up to me being unrealistic (ironic how me trying to do something historically authentic, is me being unrealistic when it suits me, funny that isn't it?).

      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
      GBU-54 is technically not a unrealistic weapon AFAIK. APKWS defineatly ain't.

      Both are already in the game, programmed, modeled, textured, ready.... All that it requires is that some people stop being stubborn for realism and a fact that DCs is just a game.
      Game != necessarily inaccurate. I mean you're taking DCS, a game that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.", but then you have a problem with it doing exactly that...

      Okay...

      I mean this whole 'it's just a game' thing, when applied to DCS is kinda like saying: "What's up with this forest? Why are there so many freaking trees?"

      Originally posted by med-taha View Post
      Isn't that a bit contradictory? to Tag it as (NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR)
      A year ago, Wags mentioned that they don't have any data about the GBU-54 but he didn't mention that this is unrealistic.
      but as we see Right now They have DATA so why not now?!.
      What? How is it contradictory, like at all?

      They didn't mark it as [NOT FEASIBLE] they marked it as [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR], ED now have data on the GBU-54, it's still [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR]...
      Last edited 10-17-2020, 09:19 PM.
      Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk
      Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

      System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

      VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

      Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Swiftwin9s View Post
        We are sold a mid-2000s hornet right? Yet we have SLAM which retired in 1999, and Walleye which retired in 1990s. Not to mention the AAMs, but I will ignore those.

        Anything Prior to 2000's technically would be capable as the upgrades done to the mid-2000's point did not remove capability, if you got F/A-18s flying 1 1980s scenario w/ mid-2000's weapons, the mission designer obviously pencil pushed the mission and didnt do a decent job.


        Originally posted by randomTOTEN View Post
        Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.


        Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.
        Despite the Marketing Videos and Slides, APKWS is not "plug n play.", more like: Install a Quick Patch, and Play.

        You cant take a 80s aircraft out of mothballs that's still running an early OFP and expect it to work, with no upgrades,
        nor can you slap it on a bird without an update and expect that same computer system to know what it is without updates.
        These new Stores Management and Flight Control Systems account for Stores and their weight/drag parameters, as well as weapon profiles.
        Otherwise the FCS would let you pull the same G as if you loaded rockets that weigh 13lbs each instead of the APKWS Rockets that weight 32lbs each.

        Now remove the computer system that manages most mid-80s aircraft (ie Hornet F-16 etc), and take a 60's/70 Aircraft (ie F-5E) and it's a different story,
        As the dials are usually Manual A/A, A/G, BOMB/ROCKET, GUN/AIM9, IN/OUT/CEN, etc. and the FCS system does not have a computer that limits based on payload, nor an SMS that controls advanced HUD and trajectory displays.
        It's all on testing and the Pilot.
        Last edited 10-03-2020, 03:36 AM.
        Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,
        X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,
        3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,
        Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Andartu View Post
          Yes when the weapon could be carried by an airframe it should be available to that certain airframe.
          This is the most important thing. As I said before - it will put modules at a never ending state of development. This is not how the development of those addons should be like.

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post
          And as we know the Hornet is not yet in the state of maintaining the code, by far.
          All of the additions you seek will be added to the bottom of their priority list, and when they get there (if they do), it will be after the full release of the module. It's becauuse those additiones are outside of the original scope of the program. The worst kind of additions.

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          Also.. really, there is not an endless list of weapons per airframe, it is limited (so no Phoenix for the Hornet!).

          But again yes, what belongs to a thing, has to be on the thing, and that is it.

          And when it takes development time then yeah of course, it takes development time. Heck we all here are very well trained in the discipline of waiting. Even when it´s really not fun though
          Development time, sure - and also money. There's a limit to how much you can spend on each of those modules. It doesn't really matter how good you are at waiting.
          People seem to think it's an easy plug and play adding those weapons to the Hornet. Just a low hanging fruit.

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          But to fully refuse something with something like "Not Correct For Year" is simply the wrong turn if you want to satisfy your costumers. Especially when a good amount of the user base likes to have a certain (and even not unrealistic) toy for a product they could have bought nearly two AAA titles for.
          You shouldn't try to satisfy your customer base by adding features that were not originally planned.

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          When they show us the candy on frames like the A-10C II and the Harrier that also realistically could be used by the Hornet, they cannot expect us to hold back and say "well ok".
          The harrier could carry the 54, right? The Hornet is a mid 2000 airframe, so it couldn't. Basing it on a specific year is a very good decision, because it helps limiting the scope of the program.

          The A10C was a paid upgrade. Do you see the difference?

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post


          And sorry, just me personally, I am not interested to buy those just to use certain toys that I could have on "My" frame. Those are completely different aircraft that I don´t want to fly.. I have the Hog (really great module, was my first), but nowadays I can´t stand it´s low speed anymore, no matter what i´ts other qualities are. So I fly exclusively the Hornet. But this is of course just me and my special quirk
          Then let's boost the Hog's speed to satisfy customer needs, right?

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          Hell I just want the GBU-54 for the Hornet and not Ace Combat or a Death Star
          And let them shoot themselves in the leg by blocking potential upgrade paths to the module, or stepping in Rhino territory for no reason? All of that while spending more time and money after completing the plane already?

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          They do not deny me in the editor to set up missions in 2015 with a legacy Hornet and a Navy paintjob in PG or Syria. And that is good.. so please don´t argue with "Not Correct For Year". It´s all mixed up anyways, in the end it´s all about imagination (Holy moly I hope i don´t set the idea to limit the year for the Hornet to 2005 now Sorry but that would be a lame way for ending the thread ).
          It's not correct for year, because it's not correct for the year their plane is based on. There's nothing more to it unless they say otherwise.

          Originally posted by Andartu View Post

          As Fri13 said.. bound to mission year or even better have and just don´t use/ban it if you think it is not correct for you.
          Ah, so how about you just use the airframe that can use that weapon instead?

          There are places and topics you should insist on, like a realistic implementation of the avionic systems, or features of the radar or the TGP.
          However, asking for every new weapon that is added to the game to be added to another module 'just because', is not going to get you anywhere.
          Last edited 10-03-2020, 08:27 AM.

          Comment


            #45
            Seems like if we can make gameplay concessions like having LITENING on 4 and BRU-55s which also are not correct for year of this hornet we can add GBU-54s and pretend...
            DCS F/A-18C

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Wizard_03 View Post
              Seems like if we can make gameplay concessions like having LITENING on 4 and BRU-55s which also are not correct for year of this hornet we can add GBU-54s and pretend...
              I counter that litening claim:
              476th vFG Public Discord| 476th vFG Website

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Swiftwin9s View Post
                I counter that litening claim:

                That doesn't matter, the USMC did not have any Lot 20 hornets at that time. Its irrelevant when the USMC got the capability for THEIR hornets. Because all Lot 20 hornets were exclusive to USN up until the USN completely retired their fleet of legacy birds last year. Never mind all the OFP version differences. Or the fact that a LOT 20 bird wouldn't even use that Pod to begin with, unless they were attached to an MEU which they never were.



                But Besides all that we don't even have the same LITENING They use, we have a Spanish version. Really nothing about the LITENING implementation, is correct based on the year and specific hornet we have.



                So yeah it was a game play consideration. Plane and simple. So if they can do the mental gymnastics on that one why not GBU-54s??
                Last edited 10-08-2020, 02:32 AM.
                DCS F/A-18C

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Wizard_03 View Post
                  That doesn't matter, the USMC did not have any Lot 20 hornets at that time. Its irrelevant when the USMC got the capability for THEIR hornets. Because all Lot 20 hornets were exclusive to USN up until the USN completely retired their fleet of legacy birds last year. Never mind all the OFP version differences. Or the fact that a LOT 20 bird wouldn't even use that Pod to begin with, unless they were attached to an MEU which they never were.



                  But Besides all that we don't even have the same LITENING They use, we have a Spanish version. Really nothing about the LITENING implementation, is correct based on the year and specific hornet we have.



                  So yeah it was a game play consideration. Plane and simple. So if they can do the mental gymnastics on that one why not GBU-54s??


                  Not to mention we have had actual former USMC pilot Lex Talonis go on record saying he had never seen or heard about Litening 2's used on anything but Centerline station when he was flying them. ( from 2005-2009 IRRC). Plus skate also chipped in.
                  Last edited 10-08-2020, 04:47 AM.





                  Build:


                  [spoiler]

                  Windows 10 64 bit,

                  Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

                  [/spoiler]

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Wasn't the LITENING supposed to be an interim in lieu of ATFLIR on our Hornet? Just so players had a TGP?

                    Might be talking out of my rear here...

                    might
                    Last edited 10-09-2020, 01:58 PM.
                    Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk
                    Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

                    System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

                    VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

                    Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by SkateZilla View Post

                      Now remove the computer system that manages most mid-80s aircraft (ie Hornet F-16 etc), and take a 60's/70 Aircraft (ie F-5E) and it's a different story,
                      As the dials are usually Manual A/A, A/G, BOMB/ROCKET, GUN/AIM9, IN/OUT/CEN, etc. and the FCS system does not have a computer that limits based on payload, nor an SMS that controls advanced HUD and trajectory displays.
                      It's all on testing and the Pilot.
                      Cool, so we will get APKWS for the Huey then?
                      Wish list: late DCS: GR.1 (with GR.1B) Tornado, Improved Combined Arms (like OFP/ArmA I/ArmA II), Improved Logistics
                      Build: Ryzen 3800X on X570, GTX 980 Ti, 32GB DDR4-3200 | Virpil T-50CM Stick & Throttle, MFG Crosswind Pedals, TrackIR 5

                      Comment


                        #51
                        Originally posted by Bananabrai View Post
                        Cool, so we will get APKWS for the Huey then?
                        We can have them, no problems at that one. The helo can carry Hydra 70, so it can carry APKWS (Since it's the same)

                        Comment


                          #52
                          This topic land-slided alot more than i expected. My whole point here is that it can be carry by the plane so why not use it ? As many pointed out, it could be lock behind "year restriction" just like GPS is in-game.

                          On the other end, i could easily arge that the "this wont fit on an airframe" argument with the fact that it dosent matter what the "OEM original specs" are if you consider that they will add anything to anything to sold anything. Indian SU30MKI carry LITENING POD, is to me a good example that IRL, this whole logic dont stand the test of lucrative contracts.
                          https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.f...-bet.jpg?w=624
                          Or that some weapon require no modification to the airframe, but this have been pointed out already.

                          I understand both point here actually, those who said it shouldnot, and those who said it should. I think that we can all agreed that being the less restrictive possible and allowing people to choose if they use it or not cover the whole community.

                          You're hardcore-year-exclusive-etc-fan, then you can do it. You're more of an hardcore-not-stuck-in-time-etc-fan, then you can do it. So both enjoy the game at their most, it provide additionnal tool in the sandbox, simple as that.

                          Comment


                            #53
                            They will reserve this weapon and the APKWS for the future F-18e
                            PC: i7-10700K - RTX 2080ti - 32GB RAM PC3200 - 2x970 evo 1tb - TM Warthog Throttle - VKB GF pro - MFG Crosswind - Acer XB271HU + Dell 2713H - TrackIR5 - Rift S

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X