Jump to content

AlexCaboose

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AlexCaboose

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/07/1992

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, FS2020, BMS, XP11, P3D
  • Location
    Washington, DC
  • Interests
    Bodybuilding, flight

Recent Profile Visitors

1378 profile views
  1. Did you ever figure out how to get these added? I'd love to have this sort of thing in the F-16. If you've worked it out, please let me know.
  2. But all the people here who work on the jet say it's not wired for 4x HARMs. So the planes can't do it.
  3. This apparently can happen with regular CCRP attacks as well.
  4. Does this NVD_HDR.fx file still work? I keep getting installation issues
  5. It doesn't matter why. It isn't. And it isn't wired, which you've been hearing from people who work(ed) on the jet.
  6. Completely wrong. There's nothing that stops you from taking it, other than an agreement that it won't be done on a private server. Regardless, it is not accurate for the specific aircraft being modeled and should not exist.
  7. It does specify "hardcore realistic AND casual gameplay modes." Sounds to me like they're pretty well separated in intent. It is entirely about realism to me, personally. ED said they're modeling a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 and 4x HARMs were not able to be fired.
  8. How is killing one or two extra tanks the lesser of two evils when an aircraft is far more valuable? Regardless, that's pretty off topic. The pylons weren't wired for HARMs and so shouldn't be allowed.
  9. That's my point. They don't have unlimited airframes, why would they risk that level of damage?
  10. And "Unlimited Weapons" already exists as an option for those people, as does the rest of the Game Mode you're describing. Why would they risk the whole plane when they could just send another strike flight? I'd expect that it still would probably not happen.
  11. This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:
  12. I would imagine that they didn't greenlight it and that ED did what they did on their own. I was not consulted, nor am I an F-16 SME. I would probably ask them if that's the case before I would place any blame at their feet.
  13. I have no idea, I'm not a Hornet guy. I don't believe it's realistic though. It's more than just not being certified. It's not even wired for it. I absolutely agree, there should be a high probability of catastrophic stab damage. But at the moment, that doesn't exist, and I don't think anyone sees that being programmed in anytime soon. If it's not certified for use, it's not accurate. It's an equivalent argument because neither are something that the 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 would have access to.
  14. It pops up because if it's not realistic it shouldn't exist. If ED accidentally modeled an AESA radar it shouldn't stay on the aircraft because "oh well, we already gave it that capability." If it's not real, it's not real. ED billed the module as being the most accurate representation of a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50. There's really no difference between 4x HARMs and double racked AMRAAMs as neither are real.
×
×
  • Create New...