Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Snappy

  • Birthday 01/15/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. No I don’t disagree , I know myself that the AI aircraft right exhibit in parts downright ridiculous flight behaviour, I take issue with the above quoted claim by ED, which seems downright false. It does not deliver accurate trajectories. Also if what you say was true, what good is a new flight model for AI as long as they don’t cut the connection between difficulty setting and this physics manipulation that allows the AI to overcome physical limits.They would still overperform then ,even if the underlying flight model was more accurate.
  2. Gotta love overblown subjective blanket statements like that..The supercarrier has lots of issues and functionality missing and don’t even get me started on the Hornet. Plus, hot starts are at the same time a very good for at least as many reasons.
  3. Hmm I don’t know. I understood the different AI levels as a measure of how well/close they can fly to the limits of their aircraft..If EDs own statement is true even Ace should stall at the same point where the aircraft physically loses lift.No amount of perfect flying could overcome the limits of physics. Or are you saying the physics themselves are manipulated / thrown out the window depending on AI difficulty setting? if so what’s the source for that assumption? That would be very shady approach, but obviously something is wrong with it.
  4. Well not according to ED;) , see their bold statement in the latest newsletter, where they say the following about the SFM currently used by AI: “Although SFM produces accurate trajectory parameters such as turn rate, specific excess power, flight envelope..”
  5. Slightly OT, but why are they test-flying with a cluster ammunition dispenser weapon on the second to last picture? It looks like one to me, but Spain is also a signee of the convention on cluster ammunition . Or are they testing for potential export customers? Regards, Snappy
  6. Yes, I read it too, although I found their statement in it about the currently used AI SFM a bit bold , let me quote: “Although SFM produces accurate trajectory parameters such as turn rate, specific excess power, flight envelope..” yea right.. Let’s hope the new model is significantly more accurate.
  7. No, don’t get me wrong Arew, I understand your frustration and your position. But by now people should know how ED usually operates and that EDs definition of EA translates into long stretches of buggy(in certain areas) and incomplete product state, after they got your money. Still people seem to be willing to throw money at them, as soon as they market the next new shiny toy for pre-order & EA despite the track record. In an optimal market your expectations for the F-14 compatibility of the carrier would be reasonably valid, but again this EA, even more , it’s EDs version of EA. So you really shouldn’t be surprised, even this long after product launch. You bought into it with EA. You should expect to wait a bit longer I guess.
  8. Well thats your opinion. Beside its kind of questionable to make any real distinction there, between bug and feature when it comes to EA . The F-16's earlier inaccurate flight model could then by your definition also be considered a bug, yet ED referred to the EA label and that it would be improved later on- which it was btw, later in EA. I would say Supercarrier compatability with anything else but EDs own F-18 is a missing feature and apparently not high on their priority list, otherwise they would ve implemented it by now. The current implementation is just a no frills bandaid patch- over so that ED can formally claim you can use the supercarrier with the F-14.So OP will likely have to wait until they get around to improve it. It's just the nature of EA.
  9. I know you’re not gonna like it,but it’s EA. Meaning it is incomplete and will likely take a long time to finish. As long as people keep giving ED money for largely incomplete modules and without a clear schedule or time frame for completion, nothing will change.
  10. The AI FM is only half of the problem, the other half is their „decision-making“ process, if you want to call it that. @b0bl00i‘s example seems to be more a problem with the latter than the former. I really wish this would get significantly improved. They still act very stupid and changing their FM won’t change it. One example: Shoot at them with guns in a tracking solution, they simply don’t react, they don’t jink, they don’t change plane of motion , they just keep flying in the same predictable previous flight path until the next burst unsurprisingly kills them. Don’t even get me started on the constant looping or the vertical zoom climb , which simply makes them a perfect target for heat-seekers against a cold background.
  11. Lookup tables as basis for FM are better than their image.Even commercial level D simulators use them. But they are only as good as the data they contain and there seem to be serious flaws in the data for the AI FM. Simplification would be one thing, with less data points across a range and extra/interpolation ,but looking at the way the AI flies there really seems to be wrong data in it, making them pull stuff they physically can’t.
  12. Lets not get into a discussion about the business model as this leads OT. Suffice to say, they need to churn out new modules to keep money coming in and due to the complexity of the average module, they have ever more EA modules to finish and (broken by updates) modules to de-bug, while at the same time the next new modules have to be produced and coded to bring in money . Plus they will soon run out of popular all-star aircraft that sell like hot cakes to the broad majority of customers . Not to mention the tech gap to bridge from the old core. You can easily project where this leads in the medium to long term. Personally, I dont see this working out. But if you want to discuss the business model, make new thread, or write in one of the existing ones about it. This one is about likes and dislikes.
  13. Simply take "like" and "dislike" if "love" & "hate" is too strong or loaded for your taste. Like: - Cool visuals, normally good systems & flight modelling, sandbox possibilities. These 4 points are awesome. Dislike: -AI. AI. AI. both in air and ground units, the simplified FM for AI too. The whole AI issue drags this entire sim down immensely in single player. -The long overdue core issues. -The way older modules are still marketed, but really not cared for and pile up bugs. -The various variants of the " I'll ask the team, if there is any progress, We willl let you know when we have something to report.Thanks " - statements by community mods, which basically mean nothing and could be dropped completely or would be better be substituted each time by a simple: "This is an unpleasant side effect of our business model, live with it or stop buying" -The way ,even accurate , objective and on-point criticism is treated on the forums. -The overblown marketing hyperbole at time, i.e. over-announcing time and again, big plans & features and then having problems actually delivering in the projected timeframe or at all. regards, Snappy
  14. Thank you very much for your clarification, regarding the „window“ related to wingspan and the inherent limited practical usability for gun fights. I understand it better now. Maybe a short paragraph about this limited usability in real life could be added to future manual editions, so people who are not familiar with gunsights don’t get unrealistic expectations. I appreciate your presence here and providing support! kind regards, Snappy
  • Create New...