Jump to content

Swordsman422

Members
  • Content Count

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Swordsman422

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/16/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS: FC3, Strike Fighters 2 anthology, IL2 1946, FSX
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA
  • Interests
    Aviation, real or otherwise.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did LSO grading get more lenient in 2.7? I've flown three OKs in the F/A-18 today, which has doubled my amount of OKs in that aircraft since Supercarrier was released. I'm NOT any better than I was, say, a month ago.
  2. You would have to edit the training mission and change the aircraft skin in the editor.
  3. Wow... never noticed that skin as the carrier name misspelled.
  4. Tried every suggestion on this thread short of nuking from orbit and reinstalling fresh. No luck yet.
  5. We got close to something like this with the Strike Fighters series. The semi-dynamic campaigns could sometimes cover years of combat and the squadrons would cycle through combat duty and upgrade aircraft by date settings. While aircraft, avionics, and weapon performance was as realistic as possible, the avionics functions and operations were not fully simulated. The focus was more about the tactics and less about button pushing. It was pretty neat to play, being part of an alpha strike launching from several carriers on Yankee Station or elsewhere, and it was VERY easy to mod. Sti
  6. You had PPE on, right? You should be fine. Yeah, the Tomcat isn't FBW, so there isn't anything to prevent you from yanking so hard you rip her apart except your own discipline.
  7. That's interesting. I wonder if that will then have to be something we set in mission editor then if we're not able to set the fuse altitude for the GPs and CBUs in the aircraft.
  8. So you would then agree that, as a single-sortie game, that political forces and thus the political dimension of these weapons is outside the scope of DCS? Weapons of mass destruction cannot really be separated from the political gravity of their usage, so in this single-sortie environment, we cannot be taught the lesson that there are no winners in a nuclear war. Players only learn that the bigger the bang, the higher the score, the more quickly you win the mission. If we cannot then separate the political dimension from the weapon and cannot teach with it, why include it at all?
  9. Here are my more logical arguments for "no" on the nuclear question: Historical fidelity. Yes, some of the platforms in this sim had the nuclear capability as well as the other questionable weapons systems. But while those other weapons were used, nuclear weapons have only been used in combat TWICE, and not by any of the platforms yet simulated in the game. White phosphorous, napalm, and cluster bombs have been used in historical conflicts by platforms represented in the sim. Nuclear weapons haven't. If we get a full fidelity B-29, you'll get my agreement. If the platform coul
  10. All the same, the use of weapons of mass destruction, even in a sim, feels pretty pointless. The other conventional weapons, while banned now, were legal at one point if problematic, and would not have been that tipping point to a full nuclear exchange and the end of everything. What's the point? A big, impressive bang and mushroom cloud? Using one weapon to wreck a bunch of stuff without the real world consequences? The shock value? Why do you want to be the guy who used a nuke? I don't want to be that guy. I want to be the guy who causes the nuclear bomber to fail his mission, and that's all
  11. On the current models of the F-14A and B that we have in hand, the gunport and active purge vent are supposed to be bare metal anyway. It's not just the HB_F14_EXT_02 you have to edit. It's probably the equivalent roughmet as well that provides the metallic alpha.
  12. I'm more interested in the legacy system for Cold War, ODS, and OEF/OIF, but from the poll, the new system is winning by a landslide. Shame.
  13. The only F-4 variants that operated from carriers were the F-4B,J, N, and S for the US, and the FG. 1 for the UK. If the F-4 is a C, D, E, F, or G, it was a land-based variant. F-4Bs are easy to distinguish from Cs and early Ds by the wing thickness over the landing gear wells, the refueling probe door on the starboard side beneath the canopy, and the shape of the inner wing pylons.
  14. I confess that I am terrible with the carrier pattern and sim landings in general, and I am more than certain it is lack of a VR set that causes me this trouble. I can land planes very smoothly in real life, but then I can easily move my head and mark my visual site picture. That spatial awareness really helps me. In hundreds of attempts with the F-14, I have landed fairly reliably but scored only two OKs to my memory.
  15. I can also understand the frustrations. Believe me, I'm there as well. But coming on here and throwing a tantrum like you're three 5-year-olds in a trenchcoat over your ONE THING not being fixed yet is a little silly, especially in the face of seven other threads dedicated to screaming about another ONE THING that they demand be fixed/released right-the-goddamn-hell now. Someone wants the pilot body NOW, the Forrestal NOW, the earlier F-14As NOW, Jester LANTIRN NOW, and it all runs at cross-purposes with HB's ever-changing to do list, and further frustrated by ED breaking something with every
×
×
  • Create New...