Jump to content

Northstar98

Members
  • Content Count

    4071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

2 Followers

About Northstar98

  • Rank
    Veteran
  • Birthday 10/06/1998

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, Falcon BMS 4.35, Kerbal Space Program, Orbiter 2016, Strike Fighters 2 (Base, NA, EU, EXP2), IL-2 1946, ex. MSFSX-A
  • Location
    White Forest
  • Interests
    Aerospace, Aero/Astronautics, Electronics, Military, Martial Arts

Recent Profile Visitors

26624 profile views
  1. I think ED is going for a 90s Russian (not Soviet) variant at the earliest (Ataka + Lipa removed). While Ataka is late 80s, that (from what I can dig up here and here) was only on the 9P149 ATGM vehicle, on the Hind Ataka only seems to have been integrated in the mid 90s. The difference here though, is that the variant of the Hind we have essentially represents the Hind as it was in the 90s to how it is present day - I'm not aware of any changes since the introduction of Ataka, the aircraft as it was in the mid 90s is how it is in the present day to my knowledge. You may find examp
  2. Oh believe me, tomorrow night I'll practically be having my own personal earthquake if the patch status thread stays the same Probably bloody enormous, I'm guessing at least 20GB (pulling numbers out of my backside here) - bear in mind that a lot of stuff is getting replaced, so while the download maybe the large, the storage requirements shouldn't be as large.
  3. +1 I'd go for a Ka-27PL, but without implementation of ASW weapons and sensors there wouldn't be a lot of practical purpose to it, and it would be great if we got expanded aircraft operations on ships besides the supercarrier.
  4. I absolutely agree with you, it's in the same boat as rearming AFAIK. The pilot isn't gonna go "hey can you swap out that x for a y?", but then in DCS we do already grant some mission planning functionality to players, just with F10 map workarounds and the kneeboard instead of a dedicated mission planner + DTC system and the ground crew; they're just there to facilitate players taking the role of an ad hoc mission planner before flying their own mission. This is something that other F-16 orientated sim did very well, and the closer we get to something along the lines of what it pro
  5. I'm pretty sure the JF-17 uses the ground crew menu for the laser code, it works like everything else - it's only 3 numbers. Based on Stig's comments it seems to be a problem of having the correct steerpoint selected, and getting the Maverick to lock. But I'm waiting to see how Stig is using the steerpoints and what target is a lock being attempted on and under what conditions.
  6. The DM would be good for damaging systems, but IMO we would need proper ship sinking dynamics (think Cold Waters or SH4) to do the actual sinking side of it.
  7. IMO I'd rather it be put it into the ground crew menu rather than the kneeboard.
  8. Yeah, it's going to mandate a significant update to how RADARs work (i.e actually being attached to emitters) and having emitters on ships actually attached to a damage model zone. It's going to be particularly bad for ships that don't have their RADARs properly defined (or even functional), the Arleigh-Burke, Ticonderoga and Supercarrier being notable examples.
  9. There's definitely a new BTR-80 and a SA-6 (new 2P25 and 1S91 vehicles) teased (they can be seen in the Hind pre-order video) though not sure if they're going to come with 2.7 or a little later down the line.
  10. +1 would be fantastic, and I think it's even planned for the SC module.
  11. Fair enough, we're basically in agreement. The most accessible, sure - it's available in every mission. Though it doesn't really give you the time to locate and do stuff yourself like a dedicated training mission would. Same for the assisted start for Jester (though only available on the Tomcat). Yes, and I think that's deserving a thread in the wishlist section if it hasn't been done already. Fair enough, I'm pretty much exclusively SP, so here our mileages are differing.
  12. The only thing I've seen here is the experts saying there's nothing in ATFLIR that will cause rotating glares and flares. I'd like to see how they explain this then...
  13. Yeah, and they're available in an anti-personnel and anti-armour variants (AO-2.5RT and PTAB-2.5KO bomblets respectively) but I don't think they're going to be available on the Mi-24P. Same story as the UPK-23-250 gun pods.
×
×
  • Create New...