Su-30

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]...but jet fighters are so fast and OFP islands are so small that you´ll be dogfighting over the ocean 90% of the time, where the feature doesn´t matter...

That's where raft auto-spawn scripts are so useful . Of course, you then need to paddle to shore .

[Consigliere 0]

...yeah, yeah, and if you want tank battles go play Steel Beasts, and for infantry battles go play America's Army. But what if we want all of them?

OFP is better than both Steel Beasts and AA in their respective areas. Not more realistic than Steel Beasts, but a lot prettier and it has a lot more tanks, plus you can move outside your tank.

In OFP, planes are just a bonus. The only planes that are really usable are A-G ones, since OFP has poor flight modeling (seriously, what flight model?) and a short viewdistance, even when set on 5000. The only thing I might find good about OFP compared to LOMAC is the fact that you can eject, but jet fighters are so fast and OFP islands are so small that you´ll be dogfighting over the ocean 90% of the time, where the feature doesn´t matter...Just my opinion, of course.

Well then I could say that choppers are also just a bonus, or tanks for that matter...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well then I could say that choppers are also just a bonus, or tanks for that matter...

Except tanks and choppers are important features in OFP that boost the quality of the gameplay.

[da_ofp_man 0]

Except tanks and choppers are important features in OFP that boost the quality of the gameplay.

Well fighter -dominator planes are to   For example in a mission when you are attacking enemy position with no AAA or SAM and the enemy your fighting calls for airattack on your position the only way to stop them  is to send ther your figters to take out te A-G mission planes.Just my view of the situation

[DKM Jaguar 0]

...yeah, yeah, and if you want tank battles go play Steel Beasts, and for infantry battles go play America's Army. But what if we want all of them?

Then go look for the magical brilliant-at-everything super game where there are no bugs or flaws and the scripting is all in understandable terms, and you never get bored of the way all the (non addon) vehicles seem the same except for the shape of them. That, I'm afraid, is not OFP.  

 

[m21man 0]

But it's so much more fun to run over your enemies with tanks!

Edit - Besides, anything faster than a SU-25 will probably be completely uncontrollable by the AI. I've never seen one of the RAD F/A-18s engage something properly while under AI control.

[da_ofp_man 0]

But it's so much more fun to run over your enemies with tanks!

Edit - Besides, anything faster than a SU-25 will probably be completely uncontrollable by the AI. I've never seen one of the RAD F/A-18s engage something properly while under AI control.

Planes are to big fun and in ofp they advantage is that you can get out of plane and some other options wich are not accessible in a typical flight simulator.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Planes are to big fun and in ofp they advantage is that you can get out of plane and some other options  wich are not accessible in a typical flight simulator.

I've never played a military flight sim that let me bail out and fight on foot . Or land my chopper, hop out, and hunt down one of those damn Shilkas...

[Wonder 0]

...nor have I played a multiplayer game where you can provide air support for the ground units, or call in the air support yourself after your squad has disabled an enemy air defence unit, or rush in to save a friendly tank platoon under attack by a Su-25.

What I'd like to see in OFP is a command engine that lets you control all the elements in the battlefield - Armour, infantry units, air defence, air support, artillery, logistics... the works. CoC is prtetty much it, but it still needs work.

[m21man 0]

Yes, OFP is amazing, but I think that really fast jets are the last things that should be worked on. I like tanks more as they're a lot more nasty than a ground attack jet (Except an F/A-18 with B61s ).

[Crowley 0]

An Su-30MKI would be pretty sweet. Arguably one of the best 4th gen fighters. Anyone know if thrust vectoring is possible in OFP though? Or canards for that matter. Implementing missiles capable of targeting and firing at aircraft in the rear would be next to impossible though.

The SU-30MKI doesn't have rearward firing missiles...I know some of the Flankers have rear facing radars, but I don't think I've seen any implementation of rearward firing missiles

The missile is mounted on a pylon like normal and shoots forward but flips around to face the rear after release.

[Consigliere 0]

An Su-30MKI would be pretty sweet. Arguably one of the best 4th gen fighters. Anyone know if thrust vectoring is possible in OFP though? Or canards for that matter. Implementing missiles capable of targeting and firing at aircraft in the rear would be next to impossible though.

The SU-30MKI doesn't have rearward firing missiles...I know some of the Flankers have rear facing radars, but I don't think I've seen any implementation of rearward firing missiles

The missile is mounted on a pylon like normal and shoots forward but flips around to face the rear after release.

Hmmm...That doesn't sound very practical

The only documentation I've seen regarding rearward firing AAMs showed them as being mounted backwards and firing backwards.

[m21man 0]

I really don't like the sound of that . When I shoot a missile, I want it to go forward, not to turn around and head right back towards me .

[Consigliere 0]

That's what I'm trying to say...The way I saw it documented was that the missile is fired so it's always heading away from you

But I don't think there's much point in rearward firing missiles I'd agree with rearward facing radars, but not rearward firing missiles.

[Crowley 0]

An Su-30MKI would be pretty sweet. Arguably one of the best 4th gen fighters. Anyone know if thrust vectoring is possible in OFP though? Or canards for that matter. Implementing missiles capable of targeting and firing at aircraft in the rear would be next to impossible though.

The SU-30MKI doesn't have rearward firing missiles...I know some of the Flankers have rear facing radars, but I don't think I've seen any implementation of rearward firing missiles

The missile is mounted on a pylon like normal and shoots forward but flips around to face the rear after release.

Hmmm...That doesn't sound very practical

The only documentation I've seen regarding rearward firing AAMs showed them as being mounted backwards and firing backwards.

That doesnt sound very practical. Mounted backwards it can only engage rear targets, which would be less frequent than targets ahead of the plane.

They are not "rearward firing missiles", they are missiles that happen have to ability to target and travel to targets to the rear of the firing plane. At least not the ones Im talking about, because there are missiles mounted backwards, but they are not very practical for the reason I mentioned. There are also experimental rotating pylons, which will probably end up being the most practical.

[Wonder 0]

That doesnt sound very practical. Mounted backwards it can only engage rear targets, which would be less frequent than targets ahead of the plane.

Not with the Russian air force I guess

What I like about russian aircraft designers is that they're pretty innovative with things like IRST and helmet-mouted sights. Now they're experimenting with fighters with rearward-facing radars, rearward-shooting missiles, thrust vectoring and whatnot! All those things can make a helluva dogfighter.

The americans are still pretty much stuck to traditional HUDs, AIM-9Ms and active sensors instead of passive. If they don't start being more open-minded they're gonna fall behind!

[Consigliere 0]

An Su-30MKI would be pretty sweet. Arguably one of the best 4th gen fighters. Anyone know if thrust vectoring is possible in OFP though? Or canards for that matter. Implementing missiles capable of targeting and firing at aircraft in the rear would be next to impossible though.

The SU-30MKI doesn't have rearward firing missiles...I know some of the Flankers have rear facing radars, but I don't think I've seen any implementation of rearward firing missiles

The missile is mounted on a pylon like normal and shoots forward but flips around to face the rear after release.

Hmmm...That doesn't sound very practical  

The only documentation I've seen regarding rearward firing AAMs showed them as being mounted backwards and firing backwards.

That doesnt sound very practical. Mounted backwards it can only engage rear targets, which would be less frequent than targets ahead of the plane.

They are not "rearward firing missiles", they are missiles that happen have to ability to target and travel to targets to the rear of the firing plane. At least not the ones Im talking about, because there are missiles mounted backwards, but they are not very practical for the reason I mentioned. There are also experimental rotating pylons, which will probably end up being the most practical.

Say this system of rearward firing missiles was implemented on a Flanker...Well the Flanker has 12 hardpoints IIRC so you'd have perhaps two or 4 rearward firing missiles installed, leaving you 10/8 conventional AAMs

Like Wonder said, the Russians have come up with some pretty strange (for the US) ideas

[NAA_Us_Marine 0]

wonder you have your facts totally wrong the United States airforce doesnt fall behind infact they are very much ahead. One difference between the russian and US militarys is the US keeps there mouths shut about their technology's and dont tell the general public when really they dont need to know this, I mean would you tell the general public about some super missile that never misses? so you give other manufacturers a hardon towards making a super missile that never misses.

[coporal_punishment 0]

wonder you have your facts totally wrong the United States airforce doesnt fall behind infact they are very much ahead. One difference between the russian and US militarys is the US keeps there mouths shut about their technology's and dont tell the general public when really they dont need to know this, I mean would you tell the general public about some super missile that never misses? so you give other manufacturers a hardon towards making a super missile that never misses.

Well I herd something simular to that. From what I understand is that the US have way better technology and don't impliment it unless they are in a huge war. They don't impliment their technology becuase once they have announced it it will be open to sabotage hence we could see this is the cold war with the f-86 sabres etc.

[Consigliere 0]

Well I herd something simular to that. From what I understand is that the US have way better technology and don't impliment it unless they are in a huge war. They don't impliment their technology becuase once they have announced it it will be open to sabotage hence we could see this is the cold war with the f-86 sabres etc.

Ehhh...Have Blue anyone?  

[Wonder 0]

wonder you have your facts totally wrong the United States airforce doesnt fall behind infact they are very much ahead. One difference between the russian and US militarys is the US keeps there mouths shut about their technology's and dont tell the general public when really they dont need to know this, I mean would you tell the general public about some super missile that never misses? so you give other manufacturers a hardon towards making a super missile that never misses.

So that's what the strange light's above the deserts of Nevada were!!  

And please! I have the facts that the Russians have aircraft with the features mentioned above, but I have nothing but assumptions that the US is developing some X-234 can't-tell-anything-about-it UFO with hyper-maneuverability. You can't call assumptions facts! I haven't seen this aircraft and neither have you, unless you work for Locheed or the government or are living in a trailer in Nevada!

I might as well say that Finland has the word's greatest fighter that can blow any existing fighter out of the skies, but we don't tell anybody about it.

If you're saying that the US has something better than the russians then you'd better have something to back it up!

[NAA_Us_Marine 0]

cannot disclose such information. lol

and back to russia, Its about marketing they want to get their industry rolling in every sort of way i dont think trying to make the fighter sell by disclosing such info unless you have a serious buyer is a very good idea lets think reality here F15's have a kill ratio that rules the mig-29's and migs are said to be the best close in A2A dog fighter in the world well you look at the stats and it shows. I dont want to give the impression that the su-30 is a bad aircraft i love the thing just like i love the mig-29.

[Consigliere 0]

Another thread bites the East vs West dust

[Crowley 0]

And please! I have the facts that the Russians have aircraft with the features mentioned above, but I have nothing but assumptions that the US is developing some X-234 can't-tell-anything-about-it UFO with hyper-maneuverability. You can't call assumptions facts! I haven't seen this aircraft and neither have you, unless you work for Locheed or the government or are living in a trailer in Nevada!

Actually, the US has the US/German made X-31 among other thrust vectoring test aircraft (F-15, F/A-18 and F-16 with modified engines and frames for experimentation) that are far ahead of Russia for manuevability. The US is also one of only two countries with TVC aircraft in service (excluding such aircraft as the harrier and Yak-141 as their thrust only vectors between rearward and down), the other country being India with its Su-30MKIs. Made in Russia, but not made for Russia.

If the Su-47 ever goes into production it may get 3D thrust vectoring engines, but that is highly unlikely unless Putin's reign of terror turns toward military expansion.

Since you'll probably mention it; the Su-37 was a showpiece, basically a modified Su-35. Only one Su-35 was modified to Su-37 specs and that one was later converted back to Su-35 standards (and then crashed some time afterwards, pilot ok I believe).

[da_ofp_man 0]

wonder you have your facts totally wrong the United States airforce doesnt fall behind infact they are very much ahead. One difference between the russian and US militarys is the US keeps there mouths shut about their technology's and dont tell the general public when really they dont need to know this, I mean would you tell the general public about some super missile that never misses? so you give other manufacturers a hardon towards making a super missile that never misses.

Well I herd something simular to that. From what I understand is that the US have way better technology and don't impliment it unless they are in a huge war. They don't impliment their technology becuase once they have announced it it will be open to sabotage hence we could see this is the cold war with the f-86 sabres etc.

And how can you know that US technology is better from everyone else.Russian also have their secrets planes wich they did not show to the world and a lot of other advances.Their are in the same level as US or maybe higher in some domain.You'r never no unless you are in Russian army