Jump to content

exhausted

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by exhausted

  1. I think people don't understand how the Harrier works. It's an unconventional plane that treats you badly when you fly it conventionally. But, when you think through all the things it could do, you are able to bring those techniques into a fight. Online, an F-16 jockey thought I was easy pickings. First he tried a circle fight, and lost that to my trust vectoring. Then he tried extending and zoom climbing, which he lost because I turned on water injection. Finally, he settled on gaining tons of speed and flying wide circles, which worked in his favor but not long because of his fuel situation. The Harrier rocks, and if you have hubris when trying to shoot one down then you are in for a terrible surprise.
  2. Well hold on now about your rationale about me being stubborn - the argument is the F-4E is inferior to the S, based on what the F-4 is designed to do. I'm not going to fault the air force on making a wise choice to yield the Navy's program, but I won't credit the air force either for turning out an aircraft that is inferior as both a fighter and an interceptor. It is also inferior because they took a carrier capable beast and clipped it for land lubbers . I suppose that leaves the strike capabilities, but even the E's capabilities aren't appreciably ahead of the S, given they were both substantially inferior to every other strike aircraft in the Navy, Marine Corps or the land lubber branch's inventory. This isn't really correct. Japan's F-4EJs are quite distinct. Iran's Phantoms had a modified layout. Germany's -F was basically also an E, but built from its inception with appreciable differences. We are talking about substantial differences, including incompatibility with aerial refueling used by every other country, except the US and Iran. I wouldn't poopoo on the large number of F-4Ss the Marines used from land as quite capable STRIKE FIGHTERS, in many ways eclipsing the F-4E in both capability and doctrine -- into the 1990s. The S may not be exclusively restricted to land use, as the E, but it is not exclusively a carrier aircraft, by design or doctrine of use. That being said, I agree the E will not please everyone or even come close in representing a Navy design that was intended to fill a seaborn role for all intents and purposes. And I suppose a J or S will not satisfy purists who either want a permanently attached gun or who cannot be satisfied with a skin for a D, which would actually make sense and represent many of the countries that operate the F-4, to include the USAF, ROK and Iran. So yeah, ED must consider the audience for the Phantom is not unified behind the USAF model at all. Should they do both? I don't know, but I do know I wouldn't drop money on the less capable land version of the iconic carrier aircraft.
  3. Yea, I'm not too sure about that seeing the E is basically a worse S with a bunch of extra stuff bolted on, depending on the customer. The E was just a stopgap made in reaction to an environment the USAF was incapable of anticipating. Take from that, what you will. Totally not saying that, in fact the basic F-4E doesn't do well modeling its role for most of its customers AT ALL. The mods absolutely matter here. We are talking about: -different radars -different cockpit instruments -different variations of cockpit layouts -various types of wings -different flight modeling -different situational awareness suites Basically everything is so different for each country, you would just have to settle for reskins and have a generic E that doesn't work the way we want it to. Also, the basic E is incapable with refueling with 90% of the nations it flew with, unless ED clears a additional modules and we already know this is unlikely. So what you want is a dedicated ground attack aircraft, like an F-15E, which is coming. You could settle on the frankenstein patchwork that is the F-4E, or you can get a really good module that does what the F-4 was designed to do as a carrier based, multi-role fighter-bomber with the J/S. Best to include or rather prioritize the Marine Corps/Navy F-4J or S, because I don't see the E really adding anything all that interesting that the F-4S can't do in the 70s-80s scenario you mentioned. Unless you want to fly opfor on the PG map
  4. I'm not sure how you arrived at this at all. The F-4E will be irrelevant as a ground attack aircraft as soon as the F-15E and A-6E are out, and both are already confirmed. All you are getting for an F-4E is a downgrade from the purebreds. I get some of you want an internal gun, but what's the point? It costs you in radar ability and doesn't really give you what you want anyway. If you're USAF, you already have better choices with the F-15, F-16 and soon F-15E. If you are Iran, you're going to be outgunned as soon as you're airborne. If you are Egypt or South Korea, you won't even have a map. So what about Israel? Wrong version, you can have a USAF F-4E or an Israeli F-4E, but you can't have both without multiple versions with individual improvements. Look how well that worked for DCS: F-16. So, really what's the point? I wouldn't even buy the -E. Don't even get me started on all the different updates with Greece, Turkey and Germany. On the other hand, with the J or S, you get a much more modern suite, in the aircraft as it was meant to be used. If it is smart weapons you are after, then wait for the A-6E. And you get carrier capability for both. Why would you want to settle on an -E module that really does nothing the F-4 was designed for?
  5. F-4E is just too limited. The F-4J and S are the probably the best choices, and actually fill a variety of roles. We have too many aircraft carriers that would go to waste on yet another air force sled. If you want to go USAF that bad, then slap a D skin on your J and go to work. You can't do the reverse and make the -E carrier capable.
  6. It's not much of an exploit - it's a damn liability. Against many Western fighters, the MiG-29 suffers from speed loss and long recovery times. It feels like, if you set the MiG-29 and the F-16 up at the same high AOA, at a speed under 200 KIAS, the F-16 would want to pick up speed 2-3 faster than the MiG-29. Your AOA limiter override is a better tool to foil shooting solutions or gain a snap shot. Flaps will not only cash in all your airspeed but leave you in serious debt.
  7. I normally fly stable. But when I go online with the 2.7 beta I get massive load times. When I spawn, it takes about a minute to load the scenery and the cockpit. If I'm flying, my plane has crashed before my screen refreshes. Then sometimes the game just never finishes loading, gets nonresponsive and it's a hard PC crash. Any tips to prevent this?
  8. EULA aside, this does not tend to bother me at all. I'm not a modder - just a guy who's been simming since 1994. The game performs well past any security expectation one should even expect. Perhaps too much so. I am more than willing to tolerate some level of exploit if it opens some potential for modding in this game in a way the community finds interesting.
  9. Another variation would be the Su-25 Scorpion, if we could add A-10 weapons, HUD and basically some new custom gauges
  10. Can you add the AV-8B and F/A-18? They are probably better suited to the CAS role.
  11. F-4S or maybe J. It wouldn't make sense for B, C, D, E or F.
  12. Yea you probably would be wrong to assume that convenience. If someone is posting about it, they probably thought of all the silly little simple steps you did.
  13. M2 Bradley 1) form a mission using fast mission creator 2) add player command ability in mission editor 3) change player aircraft to AI 4) play it That was the last few scenarios I tried and experienced the issue. All other times, it's ok. It almost seems to be an issue with the smoke graphic.
  14. Firing a tow missile at a passing T-80. For the first 3-4 seconds, the tow missile sends my frame rate down to about 1 per second. Then it speeds up, but then it might crash before impact.
  15. Bringing the fighting to the Americas is a fascinating idea. We should get this map. It's a beautiful scenery and a plausible flash point. Go from Miami to south of the Cuban island, and you have a good scenery that can use most of the game's assets.
  16. Sounds superficial. The F-5C was given a a2a refueling probe and modifications to fight corrosion. It was only used in South Vietnam. I think you could use the F-5A to cover the -C as a supplement. But a dedicated -C would be pointless as it robs the biggest advantage the F-5A has going for it: it was used by so many countries, but the -C was not.
  17. We need an F-5A with a complimenting CF-5A/ refueling probe complimenting it. The aircraft was prevalent on every continent, so it makes sense.
  18. Not to be dismissive but one of the points we've been making is the Hornet does not accelerate faster than the Harrier, so you're out of luck there. The other point we've made is your hypothetical in the one scenario of the Hornet using its performance to exit a fight while it is already fast and at high altitude has merit. However, if not both, then you're not in the fight you envision and it's time to start thinking of contingencies. You could try to run, but as we've already said, see the first point.
  19. If you're close enough to launch heaters at him, you're close enough to get ghosted by his wingman. Did you even hit the first guy? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact they could end the fight with you in a burning hole is what makes it interesting.
  20. All that is true. But if you just want to avoid a fight then you can't brag about winning or beating them. To me, that seems to make this angle moot.
  21. You are perfectly free to take yourself out of the fight to avoid a couple Harriers. But just be aware they can climb with an F-15. So if you want to make a point of you vs 100 Harriers, you'll just have 100 Harriers on your butt until you finally reach your golden perch.
  22. In a hypothetical 1v1 scenario, this is a possible case. But 2 v 2 or greater, then that advantage is seriously limited.
×
×
  • Create New...