Jump to content

jojyrocks

Members
  • Posts

    395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World Steam edition.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Last time before the patch, it was manageable to aerobrake on landing with the Viggen. After this patch, it has become noticeably more difficult to do that. The nose comes down too fast, unlike last time where it was more controllable to keep the nose up.
  2. Most of the buyers would ONLY be those who play MP. Suppose If I already own an F-18C Module. I would not be buying a two seater F-18D as its only use can be mostly utilized in MP arena only, co-ordinated play. I mostly stick with SP and would rather want ED spend their resources on something fresh or a bit more different, and one that would serve BOTH MP and SP players and would have buyers from both the SP and MP. I guess we'll just have to see what ED decides on....if they want the D version...
  3. Yes...you stated it was good for Multiplayer folks, and you like to train others. I did point that out too (Maybe I did not stress that enough...). I am aware of the advantage of two seater jets and it reduces the workload on the pilot etc etc... What I was again pointing out was. You were hoping ED invest on F-18D coz it would serve with that extra seat, for trainers, as in, at Multiplayer, Having those servers. Ok, I do get that. But seeing that I am not a multiplayer guy (Not everyone has a super solid internet connection, and some just stick with SP) and is very much fine with the current Hornet, I just do not see the need of the D version for my use in Single Player. What I'd rather have ED do is, either of the following: Build a module that does not look like the same for, and satisfies BOTH SP and MP folks. Not just the MP folks. Upcoming FRESH DESIGN, RAZBAM F-15E is an example of a module that serves BOTH SP and MP folks with having a HUMAN back seater ability in the upcoming module. It is fresh and the cockpit does not look like our F-15C FC3. I wouldn't mind a clickable F-15C even when we do have an FC3 version of it. But IF we do get F-15C clickable and then, I certainly will NOT be hoping for F-15D which is like for us SP folks, kind like flying the F-15D...kinda useless for SP. But useful only for MP folks. I mean, we're also getting Mig 29 clickable...a bit of same kinda version from our Mig 29A FC3. End point is, Let ED decide. If they want to work on F-18D module or not.
  4. My point was...it would be better to go with a FRESH design and, yes, I am aware of the fact that Super Hornet series is still very much classified and in full service. Just pointing out, A super hornet would have been better, even if some of the cockpit does look the same as legacy. Having the F-18D as AI would be pretty good though... As yet another fresh module, it is only good for Multiplayer folks/crowd. The pilot seat would be mostly the same as our current Hornet model. I'd rather have ED input more time and effort focus on Game engine and or some Fresh modules, like the Phantom for instance...
  5. Yet another Hornet...not much difference. Would rather have a F-18F Hornet than flying the same ol...same ol. Better to go with fresher designs.
  6. If its a trainer that we want again... I would suggest a carrier capable T-45 Ghoshawk. It is well, pretty much a NAVAL Hawk. Extra fun with carrier landings and can even go shore based training. Better value for a trainer if developed.
  7. No chance of Indian helo being turned into a full on module and that too an obscure module that is not much fit to any current maps at present. HAL LCH hasn't even got sales as it is still undergoing several updates; plus it is a VERY FRESH helo that is in a LIMITED SERIES PRODUCTION being updated on the way. So far, India has only 8 and 4 of which are Tech demo. I don't get why you'd think it could be HAL LCH...
  8. It is a niche aircraft for a VERY SPECIFIC role...not that worth the costs of development till DCS revamps the radar and ECM and IADS workings. Also, its more fitting for just MP centric people and people who are more into coordinated matches. So far, SP would not put much potential of this to full use. Not everyone has a rock solid internet connection nor is that much into MP playbase. The E is pure multirole. At current, E can also do the same role as G..... It too can take on SAMs as well. Maybe, not to the refined ways of the G model which is built SOLELY for just taking out SAMS and that itself is only a single type mission plane and it is just an American specific plane unlike E having seen good use among other nations. Those Naval F-4 has more fun aspect and flexibility than the G versions. Also carrier fun. What majority would want is a plane that is more flexible as far as mission varieties are concerned and not having to stick to just one niche role like SEAD or Reconnaissance dedicated versions of F-4. It would be a bonus, having cannon ability or having the ability to carry cannon pods.
  9. Maybe they are studying IR signature aspect as well...among the other radar signature tests that the F-117 still is seen doing, experimental flight tests. They could have been studying the F-35 and the F-22. But the F-117, I think, provides much better training or sample as IR signature testing as it has specifically designed non afterburning engines. And since they are still flying in these experimental test flights. I do think a full on module is remotely possible to make to levels of DCS standards. If it does happen, it would be a miracle! But we certainly do expect UPDATE AI MODEL of this F-117, that can happen, it should. Current model is not withstanding! The thing is, It simply cannot be shot down by missiles. At least for me, this strange phenomenon happens. There is something very strange with the damage modeling.
  10. Would certainly be handy in missions that need more better handle on fuel economy. A handy extra feature that would help a lot!
  11. Personally, I'd wish for the most famous and widely sold F-4E and it is more versatile in being truly Multi role/ Multi - purpose and the internal cannon is an added bonus if you run out of missiles or miss, thereby giving you a lot more options. And yes, this is the one that had been ballparked by ED. More sales value in relation with development costs. But, for a special variant. I'd hope for the British variant, one with the Rolls Royce, it gives us a lot more options with our upcoming Falkland map. More sales value in relation with development costs here as well. Even Still...I see the regular USN/USMC F-4J having more likely possibility of being done....no probs with those either. - Not interested in: B, C, D Phantoms... too dated... - Certainly not interested in the Niche Wild Weasel and Recon Phantoms that are just only meant for Single type missions. So ultimately it is hard to say...but for me, and I am quite sure the majority of players here will have no probs of the following Phantoms. E (this is extra versatile having a built in cannon), Any late doable Naval variants. RR British would be good to if we do have the info availability on these rare types...
  12. Too bad, chance of F-117 happening as a module is next to impossible. It is still reportedly doing study test flights as of present...it has been seen flying.
  13. jojyrocks

    Mig-29G

    I think it is not too different than the Mig 29 that ED has taken up to develop as a module. Even RAZBAM could only get their hands on the Mig 23 MLA and not the more versatile MLD. So, it is safe to say even Mig 29S or SE won't be possible as it stands. We'll just have to settle for the FC3 levels on that. Then there is the lack of NATO specific communication tools and Identification friend or foe systems.
  14. jojyrocks

    Mig-29G

    What are the clear difference between Mig 29G and the one ED is doing on the Full fidelity module? Need to see some Mig 29s with a difference.
  15. I did. But they aren't that reliable. And what he said was, as translated, " do not write nonsense". And that is kind of vague, plus not specific, and sounded rude. I personally do not post in Russian language forum thread sections as I do not want to end up miscommunicating.
×
×
  • Create New...