Jump to content

Malakie

Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Malakie

  • Birthday March 24

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, Falcon Allied Force, Comanche Hokum, Longbow II, Star Citizen, X4 Foundations, Elite
  • Location
    Wisconsin USA
  • Interests
    Motorcycles, beer, cheese, Green Bay Packers, Firearms, Combat Simulations
  • Occupation
    US Navy, service connected disabled Veteran, 85% due to 5 injuries, 100% IU, Retired medically

Recent Profile Visitors

2528 profile views
  1. Are you an alt of Subs17? Cause that C-17 thread was hilariously full of nonsense =D

  2. Suffice it to say, a lot happens that you would have no knowledge of being many tests are classified NOFORN, not just Top Secret. We don't give away all our secrets, even to allies. Some of those secrets lately, I am very surprised at having been released publicly but I suppose they decided to do so as a message to china etc... i.e. arming both F-22 and F-35's with energy weapons (in progress now), most combat naval ships being up armed with energy weapons (although they have retained exactly the type and number as still classified thankfully to those without need to know or access).. or even today's announcement that all three Zumwalt's are going to be armed with hypersonic weapon systems by 2022-2023. Trust me when I say the stuff you can find public and online about much of what is really happening, is usually decades behind reality...
  3. You might actually be surprised at the planes that have been tried or even been modified and tested for things just like this. Keep in mind, while I know of some there are others even I don't know about as they are highly classified. One of the most famous of course, that is public, is the testing of C-130's that actually occurred. Both arrested and non arrested. The non arrested did actually happen, the arrested was not done as far as I know. The arrested testing was to see if it could stop loaded with cargo but most likely someone finally just decided the risk was way too great to attempt both modifying the aircraft and of course damaging the ship and killing a lot of people if it failed. BUT the non arrested testing DID happen and was very successful. I know of a couple other aircraft you would never think being used or tested for carrier landing.. but they are still classified tests as far as I know and being I was actually part of the task group at sea when they happened, I can't talk about them nor any other details about such occurrences. At one point before my time, there was even talk about the SR-71 landing on a carrier, which personally I don't think would have been at all possible.
  4. It's actually common in the US Military especially for special use and evaluating special functions or capabilities. Heck the US Navy has even had aircraft people would never ever think would have a use. F-16's and F-15's modified for carrier landing, stuff like that.. Sometimes it never goes further, other times it just appears that way and the thing is used for 'other' purposes and needs 'off' the books or off the need to know side of things if you get what I am saying.
  5. 'technically' you are correct... They are primary a US Air Force airframe. But the USN does have two in inventory but are not used for the same purposes as most Airforce airframes.
  6. Paint and low poly are two very different things.. Low poly means low polygon, it has nothing to do with paint. It literally determines the smoothness of a circle or bend in a surface. And on aircraft and ships both, is very important to the actual overall strength of the ship or aircraft. Whatever you think you saw was either an optical illusion or some type of metal stress/fatigue if anything. I have/attached to this post a photo in 4K and I challenge you to show all of us where it even comes close to matching the low poly of the image I posted from the game...
  7. "If I were actually in.." Wow, insults right off the bat.. nice.. First off, I was not Air Force. I was US Navy which ALSO uses the C-17's. Had YOU served you would know that. Second, I am now a 5 time injured service connected combat experienced disabled Veteran, so don't even go there with me. In fact even a little bit of research and you could have looked me up rather easily and found that out. Don't even try to question my service because I fight back... And as for your high polygon count for the real life design of aircraft.. You clearly don't have a clue what that was because if you did, you would know it was regarding INTERNAL structure in places that high counts are not needed. ANY part of the aircraft requiring specific stress points and levels, would not be impacted by that, thus most of that would be in places you would never see. It has NOTHING to do with how the aircraft looks LOL. So don't even try to play this tit for tat with me. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and being an armchair general know it all does not make you an expert in real life military at all.. not even close.
  8. You are joking right? " It looks like that in person" Not only have a I "seen" it, I have flown on the thing numerous times through out my military career.. .and the C-17 does not look like that in real life! LOL That's hilarious.
  9. Can someone reproduce this? I am unable to get the Sabre gun to fire.. Using HOTAS, button 1 on the stick of course which is default.. Tried remapping it.. I was able to get rockets to fire with button 2 but so far, not able to fire the gun with button 1. Suggestions? Or is this a definite bug?
  10. interesting.. I never noticed it before.. It looks really bad compared to other aircraft.. I have some sitting next to KC-135's on the ground.. night and day difference visually
  11. Many objects appear in LOW poly resolution regardless of settings.. C-17 good example. My system specs: i9-9900k w/48 gb ram + 32 gb intel optane cache ram RTX-2070 2 x m.2 SSD Tobii 5 Eye & Head Tracking x56 Rhino Hotas Windows 10 running in 3840x2160 UHD 4K, all settings max, distances set to about 70%, average 45-55 FPS For the objects that run in full resolution, they look beautiful so I figured this is just a LOD error in code somewhere when it comes to displaying other objects.. Not all objects are like this, maybe 1/3 of all objects appear this way. screenshot attached
  12. Incredibly reasonable IF you were around to be able to do it.. I was not as I was serving my country.
  13. Yea not sure what happened but I had updated the game, including changing my password on my account etc... And it was showing me $70 to buy it.. I just reset and reloaded back in (for some reason had to task kill DCS) and this time it now shows it for $20... so something did not or was not working right... I will support it for that but man when I saw the $70 price.. well you can see, not happy about that...
  14. So let's see, I have the previous versions but now you want $70 for me to upgrade? Really? Not happening. Someone else told me there was a $10 upgrade but apparently that had some ridiculous time limit.. which many people, myself included, were not able to even be around for .. for me, due to actual REAL life duties in a real military. This just seems like a money grab to me especially after all the costs involved to this point that has been invested in this sim. Am I wrong?
  15. Today, the game updated.. Now, I am missing aircraft and purchases (F-16 is one of them) plus it is not keeping the keys registered for ALL the Flaming Cliffs 3 planes etc.. Is the update having a known problem or what is going on and how do I fix it?
×
×
  • Create New...