+Dave Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Posted by RAZBAM-Cobra Hey Folks! Hey Folks! It is with great pleasure that I can make this post-- and announce that the development of another fantastic RAZBAM product has already begun. As you all know -- RAZBAM is home to a number of talented individuals, forming into semi-seperate, autonomous development teams, each working on their specific area or product. This affords us the ability to concurrently develop several high quality simulation titles in parralell, which obviously comes with massive advantages in terms of time and efficiency. This module will focus on the A-7 Corsair II E / D aircraft. As with all of our products, the aircraft will be modelled down to the last nut, bolt and quirk. Going into details and specifics about the modelling of systems would be premature. Suffice to say; we are going all the way, as with all of our products. The A-7, unlike the rest of the RAZBAM line, will be updated every Saturday (excl. 3rd of Nov.). At this moment we are in the middle of a full art overhaul of the exterior textures, model & animations. This is an important part of the process-- as our art skillset has considerably improved since publishing the FS-X version(s) of the A-7. For your enjoyment I've snapped some pictures of the exterior mesh as it appears in realtime in 3DS Max at the time of writing. Apologies for the lack of proper AA – I'm currently running a backup PC which is not cooperating. Keep in mind these are VERY VERY Work in Progress – there are many mesh details and texture details either to be added/modified or re-done. It'll certainly look much different once it's finished. Cheers, and I hope you'll enjoy what is to come Couple more.... 1 Quote
+Ruggbutt Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Now we need a proper carrier and carrier ops. I don't see it coming for a long time. Quote
+MigBuster Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 The skin work on that A-7 is pretty impressive! Now we need a proper carrier and carrier ops. I don't see it coming for a long time. And the rest........... Quote
+JediMaster Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Getting a carrier isn't a big deal. We've got one or two there already and it shouldn't be too much to get one done right. Getting the ops right, THAT will be hard. Between Flanker 2/LOMAC and Il-2/PF botching it, I've not seen a sim with proper carrier ops since the 20th century. Quote
+Dave Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 I will fly the D version more. I like the USAF better. Quote
+streakeagle Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) I love most of the announced DCS projects. The fact that this one is Vietnam era, I love even more. I am excited about the UH-1H as well. When/if they are completed correctly, the DCS plane set will be respectable. I just hate the fact that it may be 1-3 years before all the projects start being released. It is the price of high fidelity, and I am grudgingly willing to pay it. Hopefully, decent terrains are available by that time as well. Edited October 29, 2012 by streakeagle Quote
+JediMaster Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Yes, the hope that there will be terrains to match these planes is what keeps me optimistic about this "go everywhere" plan. I'm not too worried about ground objects, I think the community will make a good number...I just hope ED will make them default in the main DCS World files so that if you buy say "Vietnam" you have NVA, South Vietnamese, and US time-appropriate ground objects in there to match. I'm not averse to a "what if" Vietnam in the 80s/90s, I just don't want that to be the ONLY choice. Quote
+Ruggbutt Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 ED hasn't given us a new theatre to fly in in 10 years. Quote
+streakeagle Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 To be fair, Falcon 4.0 has two maps and Jane's F/A-18 has two maps. I guess when you focus on systems fidelity of modern combat aircraft, there is little left for terrain. I can enjoy well-modeled aircraft regardless of the terrain, especially in air-to-air combat, but historically accurate WoV and WoI were far more appealing to me than the fictional SFP1 terrain/campaigns. ED appears to be maintaining more of a WoE approach: historical terrain with fictional campaigns. I suspect their grab for FSX business will fail if they don't ever provide a complete "world". Perhaps the product should have been named "DCS:Georgia". As long as aircraft I really, really want are well-modeled like never before, the developer(s) providing them will get my money. But at a minimum, I would like dedicated maps like SF2:Vietnam, SF2:Europe, and SF2:Israel. However, I am much more interested in having a complete globe like FSX, especially one that varies with time to match major combat periods. All I can do is wait and see what ED and its partners offer over time. Quote
+JediMaster Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Of course, the problem is F4 and others had maps that were more currently historical. The Black Sea was last important in WWII. Georgia was a blip, there could never be a major conflict there unless Russia decided to invade with everything it had...and then it wouldn't last long. The West would never go to war with Russia over Georgia. Not any time soon. By the time that would be possible, we'd need PAK-FAs, F-22s, F-35s, Rafales, Typhoons, J-10/20/XX, and likely their successors modeled. I remember Falcon 3 had a Panama map...and I never flew there. I just didn't buy the whole justification for the scenario, even though it was based on recent history. Meanwhile the Kuril Islands was very interesting. In both Hornet/F3 and F4 I barely flew in the Balkans, because even though it was current it never felt like it was a major air campaign hotspot. DCS needs a Korea map, Vietnam (for the older planes), Iran and Iraq (I don't know that both could be merged due to sheer size, most past sims had them separate theaters), Israel/ME, and maybe Taiwan or Europe or something. Quote
+ST0RM Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I own all of the A-7s from Razbam for FSX and DCS is in for a treat. They are some of the best models out there. The VC is super detailed and very functional. Using the INS takes some learning, but is well worth it. Even engine management is modelled. I cant count how many times I've cooked my engine in the TA-7. -Jeff Quote
+SkateZilla Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Raz bam is like, going nuts with DCS Projects right now, .. when everything starts getting released for DCSW... My bank account is gonna take a hit... Quote
Cali Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Another 3rd party project I won't be buying, good luck in sales though. Quote
+Dave Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 Cali you lack imagination my friend. The SLUF was a work horse bomb truck. If you like A2G work she can do it well. Quote
+SkateZilla Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 the list i have, is 2 pages in word for 3rd party modules, some unannounced, but 1 and a half pages all have PoC in game. Quote
+JediMaster Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 A flying 3d model is hardly tough. A cockpit with 6DOF is more work, certainly, but getting a plane even to LOMAC/FC levels is no minor feat (or else ED would've released more planes years ago). Getting DCS levels is a whole other ballgame. Quote
JDUK Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Sorry to say, ST0RM, that I just ever so slightly disagree with you - but it's your own opinion, and that's fine. Personally, I have two Razbam FSX models (A-7 and A-4) and I thought both were so bad, I uninstalled them within a week and haven't seen them since! On the other hand, there are some other 3rd parties, whose models I have for FSX or FC, building aircraft for DCS that do get my skin pimpling. Having siad that, I would really like to have an decent A-7 in DCS:World - if they ever get it working properly - so here's hoping... Edited October 31, 2012 by JDUK Quote
+Dave Posted November 1, 2012 Author Posted November 1, 2012 Sorry to say, ST0RM, that I just ever so slightly disagree with you - but it's your own opinion, and that's fine. Personally, I have two Razbam FSX models (A-7 and A-4) and I thought both were so bad, I uninstalled them within a week and haven't seen them since! What was wrong with them? Quote
+ST0RM Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 The A-4 is not an FSX native model. Simply a portover from FS9, so I can support your not liking it. It's old and shows it's age. The new Virtavia A-4F looks very promising. Can you elaborate on what you did not like about the A-7? I does have a higher than normal learning curve with the INS and engine management, but as with any high-end add-on, thats expected. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. -Jeff Quote
+SkateZilla Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) If it's not a complaint about flight model, then i'd throw it away, as anything system related would need to be re-done anyway, in a sim that was designed for Military Airframes and no Boeing 747s. To that respect, I had FS9 and FSX Packages that did a really crappy job of implementing some of the systems of military airframes, which is why I stopped using MSFS. though playing with the VRS SuperBug at my friends house was simply jaw dropping... specially in a Pit that was molded to the Shape of a hornet's forward section, complete with Hornet Canopy and Windscreen.... epic.. the perks of living near SuperHornet Pilots.. they bring their work home with them.. lol. Edited November 2, 2012 by SkateZilla Quote
Cali Posted November 3, 2012 Posted November 3, 2012 Cali you lack imagination my friend. The SLUF was a work horse bomb truck. If you like A2G work she can do it well. I lack nothing, that's not my cup of tea, I think it looks fugly and I don't like that older stuff. Same goes for the Mig-21, I won't be buying it, but I hope sales are good. Quote
JDUK Posted November 3, 2012 Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Just didn't like the handling at all, compared to other payware aircraft of a similar type ;) For example, the control was far too light - the slightest tiny movement of the stick resulted in instant and imho exaggerated reaction from the aircraft. This made them very 'finicky' or over sensitive - not like any other modern sim aircraft I've flown or the military trainers I have flown in RL. I also thought other cockpits were better, though I didn't look into this as deeply as I normally would, as the handling put me off. I did give the Skyhawk a couple of tests at a later date, tbh, but still didn't like it. Everyone has their opinion - that's mine, like it or not PS - just remembered - I wasn't overly impressed with the textures on the Skyhwaks, either - looked very much outdated compared to many of the excellent ones around these days. Edited November 3, 2012 by JDUK Quote
+ST0RM Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Again, the Skyhawks are NOT for FSX. They are the old FS9 models. In their day, they were top of the line. As for the A-7, no worries. It isnt a fly-by-wire jet, so most people dont like the learning curve. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.