Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

GGTharos

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    25

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by GGTharos

  2. Posted

    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.

    You wil notice the diffeence in a dogfight when you in AFM has to fight to fly and the one in SFM turns corner around you on rails.

    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.

    and has a simplifier damage model. its not hard to see whats going wrong here.

  4. Posted

    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.

  7. Posted

    I enjoy that you made yourself a poster child for the quote you followed up with :)

    I enjoy that every time the F-22 gets shot down it was because the pilot wanted to be, or the opponent was cheating. :j:

    ---------- 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.

    So you have no verifiable sources and no response to the documented links? And I'm guilty of spouting "described propaganda"?

  8. Posted

    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.

    And here you have a T-38 Talon trainer shooting down a F-22 in a dogfight:

    ---------- 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.

    So yes I think the F-22 in its current form is fundamentally flawed. Given all the links to official US government announcement and published articles form credible industry news services I've given listing its failure (and successes) I cannot see how you can say it isn't flawed.

  9. Posted

    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.

    LOL, looks like someone didn't heed my advice.

    Next you'll be saying the F-35 program is going exceptionally well.

  10. Posted

    Yes it is a flawed design. It has so many flaws that the cost per aircraft has spiraled so far and so fast that it has outstripped the NAO’s worst case cost overrun scenarios. To name just a few flawed areas:

    Flawed by what measure?

    • Extreme cost and labour intensive “Stealth Coating maintenanceâ€. ~11x more expensive than forecast and takes 3x longer to do

    Stealth is a high (cost) risk technology.

    • Requirement for specialised facilities to apply the above coating. Ie it cannot be done on remote sites. Aircraft have to be returned to special sites. It’s definitely a flaw in planning and long term cost of ownership as well as the aircraft’s design.

    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.

    • Electrical power generation shortage – onboard systems cannot generate enough power to run the current or projected avionics given the current spec and design loads.

    Never heard of that one, but interesting if true.

    • Lack of NATO compatible “netcentric†data link.

    Because it isn't compatible with being stealth. Being worked on, subject to budget.

    • No ISTAR compatible sensors for “fusion†with ground forces.

    • No capability (planned or otherwise) to carry any sort of joint targeting pod.

    Not wanted/needed. This is the F-35's mission.

    • Repeated failure to implement the MADL/Link 16 datalinks

    Not wanted. Link-22 is the thing for the F-22.

    I could go on…

    Do, as long as you have such nice lists for its contemporaries. ;)

    The simple fact is that all these features are being dropped due to fundamental problems getting the basic airframe into full service. The money has run out time and time again so more of these secondary features have been cut. It’s the reality of modern large scale projects.

    The F-22 is being constantly upgraded. Some choose not to notice (or don't know).

    It’s actually hilarious to see the extents people will go to defend the PR image of the F-22 despite all the evidence.

    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 does have rivals, they may not all 5th Generation airframes but they are very capable platforms. As you say “context†is everything. In the right scenario I suspect the F-22 will excel. But how often will that scenario happen? Especially given the reality of modern warfare.

    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.

  11. Posted

    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? :)

  13. Posted

    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):

    To help alleviate some of concerns raised here about the general direction of DCS development, I can say that ED understands that production of individual titles, which need to be continually updated separately in order maintain compatibility is not a sustainable system in the long term. It continues to be our goal to develop a truly modular system with a unified world into which individual products can be plugged into and maintained up to date. Creating a technological and financial infrastructure for such a system is challenging, time-consuming and expensive, in particular when the realism bar for player-controlled and AI units, as well as the rest of the virtual world are so high. We know this has been a vision for many simmers and sim developers for a long time, including ED, but there is a reason why it hasn't happened yet. We will continue to work to try and make it a reality.

    http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1320561&postcount=860

  15. Posted

    @GGTharos, could you please say something regarding the AI improvements?

    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 :)

    Enemy Tanks in 1.02 are really just sitting ducks if you don´t come to close to them. You can take out one by one. In a real situation they would deploy smokescreens and try to find some cover or concealment. Are they doing that now? And what do you mean by Heli AI update?

    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 :)

    EDIT:

    And does this

    http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=1320290&postcount=8

    mean that you can see the Laserbeam with NV on?

    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! :)

  17. Posted · Edited by GGTharos

    Firstly, thanks for coming here and letting us hear your point of view :D

    No problem :)

    I still maintain that this is a patch, and even if you were going to charge for it, it should not have been called Black Shark 2.0, as this very clearly implies it is a totally new product.

    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 most serious issue I have with this practice is that it sets a precedent which I (and many other gamers) are not comfortable with and it is especially distressing to see it coming from a reputable and respected developer such as ED.

    JM2C

    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.

  18. Posted · Edited by GGTharos

    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.

  19. Posted

    I can't tell you how effective it is, but it's perfectly obvious that top attack missiles are within it's protective envelope.

    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.

  20. Posted

    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 :)

  21. Posted

    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. ;)

    It would be impossible to create realistic T-72 anyway, because all the info about Russian APFSDS rounds is classified. No armor penetration info available at all. Creators of SB PRO probably sued Wikipedia as their source :rolleyes:

  23. Posted

    Its those evil AA units! Be it a U.S Marine with a stinger, or a Russian Insurgent with a tripod, the AA units are simply Ridiculous. Firstly, for guided missiles why do aircraft have no warning's at all? You simply hear an explosion and your dead, simple as that.

    In real life there would be all sorts of beeping and warnings and flares flying out the back of your chopper/plane. It's just a little frustrating in a game thats so realistic. It's as if your just not supposed to have air units, they are so unrealistically vulnerable.

    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.

    The second issue, which most people don't seem to have mention'd, is the way in which AA units disable your aircraft. If you fire a guided missile, unless you are aiming ridiculously awful, or firing at an extremely fast moving aircraft, you will never miss. Not because the guidance system is too good, no not at all. Because if the missile comes withing 15 metres of your aircraft it just blows up, without even touching you.

    Maybe this is realistic in some missiles, i am no expert on the matter. But i have seen alot of real life videos/stories where the AA missile has missed its target by mere inches, and not exploded. I'm sure you've heard many stories where a helicopter has quicly spun round to dodge a missile, or where a fighter jet has out maneuvered one by using good flying skills.

    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.

    The matter of the fact is, in Arma 2, if someone fires an AA missile at you, it will 99% never miss, even if flies straight past you. It will simply explode when its within a certain radius of the vehicle.

    I bring these issues up because i wan't to see what other people think of this. Is it infact realistic and i am wrong? Or do i have a point? If i do have a point, is anyone from BIS reading this who could adress the problem?

    Aircraft gameplay would improve ten-fold if a realistic warning/flare/missile collision system was implemented, imo.

    I'm just a bit fed up of getting killed every single time by a single AA missile.

    Regards,

    Rich.

    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.

  24. Posted

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

    Yes mate, that T90 shoots AT missiles down and also has countermeasures to jam IR and laser targeting.

    They have up armoured the top of the turret with reactive armour plates, something the Javelin warhead is weak vs. You should be aiming for the engine.

    Literally translated, he is saying "Russia STRONG!!!!1!11!!"

  25. Posted

    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.

    High altitude, hot (less dense) air, launcher height advantage, high contrast thermal image... I can believe a Javelin could stretch it that far under the best circumstances.
×