Jump to content

FastCargo

ADMINISTRATOR
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by FastCargo

  8. Posted

    That was tail 85-0070, I believe the nose art was 'Excalibur'.  She did go back to flying...in fact, I remember seeing her on the Dyess flight line.  Based on later pics, it looks like she went to Ellsworth at some point before she got 'Boneyarded' in 2002 from what I understand.

     

    I actually knew the A/C who did that landing, but I couldn't remember his name to save my life.

     

    I've got video (somewhere) of one of our jets rolling out from a full aft wing sweep (67.5 degree) landing...looks pretty normal up until 20 minutes later when the landing gear catches fire.

     

    The wildest video of a Bone landing I've seen (and I haven't been able to find it ANYWHERE) was from when I watched it 20 years ago with a 55 degree aft wing sweep landing.  The nose position and speed just looked WRONG.  It was taken from the approach end of the runway and it was *%*^$# scary.

     

    FC

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    For those who wonder about purchasing from other sources than Eagle Dynamics directly, what I have noticed so far is that you only are purchasing an activation key.

     

    I bought A-10C and BS2 from GetGames, and just bought FC3 from Steam.  I downloaded the modules directly from Eagle Dynamics, then activated them with the keys provided by GetGames and Steam.   No muss, no fuss.  GetGames sent me the keys via email, and Steam showed me the key once I put FC3 in my inventory (without installing it there).  And they all played happily together in the native DCS World client.

     

    From what I understand (and I'm not an expert), ED actually gives keys to various retailers from its database, and so when those retailers have a sale, the keys should already be available to activate as soon as you get them.

     

    FC

  15. Posted

    To be honest, what did you expect?

     

    TK himself has said there is not going to be a SF3....which sounds like to me that there won't be another major engine upgrade of any sort.

     

    As far as I can tell, TK has no interest in bringing in outside content or funding for his games.

     

    People have gone around and around on this and have always ended up in the same place with the same answer:

     

    "What is done is what can be afforded to do."

     

    Does everyone remember wanting a mission editor?  TK said that they blew a bunch of time and money to make one, and hardly anyone bought it.

     

    Or how about SF2:NA with the new terrain, water effects, new damage rules for carriers and cruise missiles, new avionics, and new content?  Remember the state it came out in and how buggy it was?  I suspect he simply ran out of money and put it out just to pay the bills.  

     

    Considering that TK has also given tacit approval to modify core files (exe, dll, etc) without distribution of stock files, I would postulate he's done with any major edits to the game engine.  Unless he has something major up his sleeve, I suspect you'll only see new content, not any new engine changes.  So, what are the options?

     

    1) Make any future content compatible with the engine as it stands.

     

    2) Modify the core engine yourself.

     

    3) Move on to something like DCS.

     

    And before anyone makes the dumb statement of 'How hard can making core engine changes be?', you'll note I've asked several times here for anyone who programs core to pipe up...no one has.  Making content is one thing...programming core is quite another.

     

    Now, I've been surprised before (TK's attitude toward core file modification was not what I expected), so I could be reading this wrong, but I think he's done with core changes.

     

    FC

  16. Posted

    Man, I still remember when the F-16 first came online all those years ago. All the model kits that came out in the prototype colors, and the pics of it with the black nose (Block 1).

     

    One of the funniest stories about the F-16 is being a fresh faced 19 year old getting a tour of the (then) GD factory in Fort Worth. And having grown up 2 miles away from MacDill, I knew a lot about the Viper, and most of it's variants, including things like the AFTI and CCV test beds. So it puzzled me why there were several 2 seater F-16s I saw on the assembly line that had 'spines' similar to the AFTI model.

     

    I was told by our annoyed GD representative in no uncertain terms that information on those birds was classified.

     

    I only found out MUCH later that they were F-16D 'Barak' models destined for Israel under the Peace Marble II program and that the extra avionics are still technically classified (though most suspect it is specialized Wild Weasel equipment).

     

    FC

    • Like 4

  17. Posted

    There was also legal precedent set during the early 90s when Novalogic and LockMart tried to make the F-22 exclusive to them for computer games. The USAF and the USG basically said you can't do that with a taxpayer funded aircraft and squashed the effort.

     

    American companies aren't the only ones guilty of this...if you look in some of the AC series, you'll see in the credits licensing notes from Dassault, EADS, etc. So, someone, somewhere had to contact those companies to work out an agreement.

     

    This also happened on the civilian side with a few airlines who tried the same thing for MSFS. Apparently, that went away when someone figured out it was basically free advertising for the airlines.

     

    It seems like this is one of those things that could easily be solved. A company has to know that what's more of a benefit...free advertising and good will, or no exposure and ill will. If they are worried about copyright, just have them insert a 'not an official licensed product' or 'not endorsed' or some such language. I can understand enforcement of copyright (use it or lose it principle), but someone has to know that a small developer in a niche market isn't going to fork over a large licensing fee vs just dropping the aircraft instead.

     

    FC

  19. Posted

    All that is happening here is validating the computer model...and how quickly the computers can get out of a situation.  The fact that the F-35C can stay relatively stable even outside the envelope is note worthy.

     

    Also, something no one mentioned, is the shot where the F-35C is in a sustained negative 40-45 degree AOA flight.  That's extremely impressive for an aircraft with no thrust vectoring.  This more than likely means the AOA envelope is going to be very large.

     

    And realistically, the F-35 series is not an air superiority fighter...it is meant as a bomb truck, with some air to air capability.  Just like an F-16.

     

    FC

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

  I accept