GGTharos

Oddly enough I was ... walking through some catacombs recently :D

No, you will not. Sounds like you problem is taking aircraft not designed to do air to air work and somehow wishing, hoping that they should be able to challenge a fighter. An AFM fighter is likely to turn better than an SFM one due to better modeling of edge conditions like high AoA. Investing some serious time in learning BFM might help you make better judgements here. Yes, it has a simpler damage model, but things hitting it will still knock that SFM fighter out of the sky. FYI, I can fight with my AFM planes taking damage too, about as often as I can with the SFM ones.

The Walrus is a 1000 kilo lightweight. It's no T-55. All this future stuff is being fought with aluminum UAVs and pop-guns :D

Some suggestions: The turrets on the carrier need to depress at least 5 degrees. Right now they're limited to the horizon, which makes them less of a menace when it comes to coastal bombardment. I think it takes away from the character of the carrier and the weapon. The resource generation time is too long for so few islands. Please activate the 'resource multiplier' slider :) The enemy AI does not make good choices as to how to set up his islands - the priorities are not selected well. Please make the AI player a little more intelligent. The ground and air AI fumble around too much when given retreat orders (not that you can tell them that you intend a retreat), and do a whole lot of banging into each other if there multiple vehicles (in the case of walruses). They need to be a bit more decisive with their driving.

Signed up, fired it up, took over an island (interestingly, the game was fairly intuitive for me), then blew up a carrier when it attacked my defense island.

Sunk the APA carrier. That was an interesting battle, looks like I killed its engines on the first pass ...

I enjoy that you made yourself a poster child for the quote you followed up with :) ---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ---------- No, after reading what you wrote I think you're looking at it from a different perspective. I still disagree with you; I wouldn't call the aircraft flawed.

Here you have an F-22 turning its tail for the T-38 student who needs practice. That's all there is to that one. ---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ---------- I'll leave the rest be and say this: As far as I'm aware, the pilots only have a couple of problems with the F-22 currently - that would be the troubles with the OBOGS, and the fact that they (and probably the Golden Eagle crews, too) are under a microscope. Now, I don't hear a whole lot, but what I have heard ( ... and not from your described propaganda ) is that the pilots don't really complain about the aircraft being 'fundamentally flawed', but everyone who can blow hot air without a jet engine seems to. I'd say you're just taking this propaganda thing in the other direction. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than any other fighter development, but at the same time it just happens to kill stuff in the air better than other fighters.

The F-35 program, it, like the F-22 program, and the F-15 program and the F-14 program, and the F-111 program - it has its problems. That is something you will never get away from. The more capable the fighter is supposed to be, the more development problems it will have. It isn't unlikely to be left with some problems in production, either ( for example, F-14's engines, or for the F-15, some issues with radar manufacturing ). All these fighters were constantly upgraded, and things fixed. The F-14 was cool but never amounted to much in practice (it just didn't face the scenario it was built for). The F-111 did its job well, but didn't get famous either (of course, it isn't a pure fighter by any means like the others are) The F-15 ended up being king of the skies, with only the F-22 left to take the title ... and the F-15 certainly 'got killed' a whole lot more than the F-22 does in exercises. Other types of aircraft, such as the B-1 and F-117, not to mention the B-2, had their own kinds of hurdles as well.

Flawed by what measure? Stealth is a high (cost) risk technology. It's toxic stuff ... but if necessary, you bet they'll do it anywhere, any time. Ongoing no one's certain what's up with it flaws. Risks of new technology. Never heard of that one, but interesting if true. Because it isn't compatible with being stealth. Being worked on, subject to budget. Not wanted/needed. This is the F-35's mission. Not wanted. Link-22 is the thing for the F-22. Do, as long as you have such nice lists for its contemporaries. ;) The F-22 is being constantly upgraded. Some choose not to notice (or don't know). It's also hillarious to see the extents people will go to malign the F-22 based on a couple press releases that they claim to be evidence ( .. of what? ). Anything can be killed with the right tactics, but neither example is making your point. Both examples are rather silly - one pertains to equipment (BTW, did you know that an F-22 went up against 4 F-16's with AIM-9X while loaded with just 9M's and gun, and killed all of'em in ACM/BFM? Mutual kill with the last guy, though). There are a lot of exercises you probably will not hear about. The F-22 is an Air Dominance fighter. That's what it excels at. Up close, or in BVR - it has shortages, but guess what ... so do other fighters. In the end, if it really needs a 9X, they'll stick one on. The JHMCS as well. You're looking at this from a 1v1 perspective instead of a fighting force perspective, and you're seeing just the tip of the iceberg.

An amusing thread. F-22 'kills' are completely meaningless without context. It's even more amusing just how much length some would go into bellitling an aircraft that currently has no rival. I wouldn't expect anyone in a Typhoon or Rafale to really want to face off with F-22's - that's really asking for punishment. Here's one you might wonder about: -QGwsRazhvA Maybe F-16's aren't such great fighters after all, huh? :)

... you mean like this? http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=71028 Ah, no, you meant something else. You can stand there and hurl insults all day long, but it won't get you far :)

Unfortunately I did not test the campaign, but if I see someone's review of it I could point you to it. Some people have briefly expressed satisfaction with it so far :) ---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ---------- A statement from EB1 (Assistant Producer for ED): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1320561&postcount=860

Yes, they do. There are issues with FPS etc if they are left on for too long (so they're extremely short-lived right now), as well as it would be nice to add multi-spectral smoke to block IR. As I said, there's always room for improvement.

Sure thing, I'll try to answer your questions in as much depth as I can. Disclaimer: AI isn't at the point where it can be smart in any game, the devs can only attempt to improve on what they have :) I'll start with the heli AI update: You will notice your wingman to be more responsive, more capable of executing your orders, less prone to wandering off at random, and in general a lot more manageable. For the ground vehicles: When ground vehicles spot you or are attacked, they will take up defensive positions. If they happen to be on the move, they'll stop and scatter. Once the danger passes, they'll move on. In some cases they might still feel like sitting ducks, in others they might now surprise you. I won't say there's no room for improvement left - they could definitely still have added capabilities like using very effective countermeasures etc, and make themselves quite a painful challenge depending on skill, but we can't everything all at once :) I haven't tried this myself but yes. Specifically, you can see the IR pointer (it is a laser, but it isn't used for guidance. It's quite literally just a laser pointer in the IR spectrum which the NVGs are still sensitive to). An A-10C could point something out for a Ka-50, but the Ka-50's own lasers are not visible to NVG's (the frequency is much lower). I hope that answers your questions! :)

No problem, and thanks for the responses :)

No problem :) Ok - I don't want to argue what is a patch vs. what isn't, obviously aside from strict definitions, one way or another what matters to you is perceived value for you. :) I'm still of the opinion that BS2 is a proper upgrade, and others who have purchased BS2 hold the same opinion, so there are definitely two shcools of thought on the matter - we have some feedback that is positive as well: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=81026 The truth is that it is not viable to do upkeep for free. I understand concerns for future and existing products, and so does ED, I'm sure. I don't have the answers to questions written or implied, other than to say that there is always room for improvement, and ED always tries to improve. People sometimes say that ED doesn't listen, but I know for a fact that this is not true.

The improvement also includes some mission editor features and some heli AI features that are not yet present in A-10C. The update to the cockpit, the sounds for the helicopter, the heli AI update are all specific to the Ka-50 alone. Radios had to be updated to work in the new environment. There's a new campaign, new FARPs. These are new features specific to BS2, and do not come from A-10C. There's lots of work that had to be done - I do realize a lot of that is 'under the hood' and some people might either not care or not notice them. It isn't possible to please everyone, but, no, it isn't just a 're-sold game'. Real work went into making BS2 happen. If you don't think it gives you value for the money, no one is forcing you to buy it, either. ED is obviously of the opinion that the hours they've put into it are worth compensation. Also, disclaimer for those of you who might not know: I am a mod on the ED forums, and I am also a beta tester for their products.

No, it isn't. It used to be 'perfectly obvious' than an R-27ET would have to have a datalink and be cpaable of actual BVR engagements since the R-27ER had that, and all the did was switch the guidance section from radar to thermal ... until a radar operator and certain mig manuals told us that the radar would not generate a datalink signal on an ET launch, and the sensor required a lock before launch anyway - you could not launch the missile and have a successful engagement if the missile's seeker was not locked on target while it was on the rail still. So, with all due respect, you saying that 'it's perfectly obvious' it utterly and completely worthless, especially since there's no source backing you up on it. It might turn out you are correct some time in the future, but right now, you're just making an assumption that has no real merit.

I just finished playing this campaign. Bardosy, this is an excellent piece of work you have here. All I can say is, more please? Although personally I am largely interested in playing the western side, I'd play just about anything you make. This was a very nice campaign to play and I'm sorry to see it be over so soon :)

SB Pro is used to train real gunners; I imagine that while they might be better informed about the effects of rounds on target, SB PRO is likely reasonably accurate - you just have to play to your strengths as with everything. I understand that you wish your opinion was more qualified than that of the people who make simulators for militaries, but ... that's just not real. ;)

Funny, T-72 rounds tend to ping right off my M-1's armor in SB PRO ...

Because most aircraft are in fact NOT equipped with MAWS systems to warn them of impending doom. You actually have to LOOK for the launch. On the other hand, you have plenty of guys hanging out the doors in some of those choppers to spot it ... and you should probably have flare launchers in a most of them, so there I agree. However, realize that air unit combat is not and is not meant to be hugely realistic in ARMA2. It's not what ARMA2 is simulating. Stinger, Igla, and other similar missiles tend to not have proximity fuzes - they are hit-to-kill. On the other hand, they are accurate enough to attack cruise missiles, and a heli is a far larger target. While this isn't modeled well in ARMA2, again, ARMA2 simulates ground combat, not air combat ;) Lastly, it is physically impossible for a helicopter to outmaneuver an air to air missile or a SAM. It may manage to defeat the guidance system and then get out of the missile's way, but actually outmaneuver a guiding AAM/SAM? No. More like they just need to implement flare launchers, and that'll be that. The AH-1Z has a MAWS, and I think maybe the UH-1Y does too, but it might not be particularly easy to model.

And that's one of the reasons why portable ATGMs will continue to be salvoed. The Jav warhead will do just fine against ERA. ;)

You don't need all that ... all you need to realize is that 'advertized range' does not equal 'true range' in some cases. The rocket propellant for the Jav is likely good to carry it this far, but it's laso likely to be sub-optimal when it comes to engagement time. A TOW at 4km is flying for 20+ sec. Assuming that sort of flighttime for a far Javelin shot, that's a lot of time to implement some counter-measures.