JediMaster

They never said it was impossible. In fact, several claimed it was and said they were doing just that. Then, inexplicably, just when it was starting to take hold, they'd start over again. To whit: Falcon 3, OFT, MiG-29, Hornet...???? Sorry, we're working on Falcon 4, starting over again! Over and over, they quit expanding what they have and start from scratch on a "new and improved" engine that costs more to make but gives the user less than they had before. We waited in vain for the F-15E expansion for F4. I think it was less than 6 months between its announcement and the shuttering of the doors. Then F4:AF promised to revive that, and it apparently sold WELL over their projections, and...nothing. They did nothing for so long they lost the rights, and it's done. All they needed was another plane cockpit, another flyable plane (like the F-15E) and they could've continued on, but they didn't. Why not? Who knows? Anyway, I'll give even odds that DCS will be replaced by DCS World 2 or whatever long before it gets even CLOSE to what you're talking about. We'll have as many flyables as one of SF2's titles, done to DCS or "close" levels yes, but then something will happen and ED will decide to start over again. I mean, if Black Shark 2 and Flaming Cliffs 3 hasn't convinced you of that...

Yes, IF there were also term limits on those people. When you have some serving for literally longer than some people's lifespans, you know it's just become a case of people voting for their party or the name they know. My preference would be 20 years. Three terms as a senator, 10 as a representative, and then you can't run anymore. Plus it would be cumulative, and you couldn't do 20 + 20. If you serve 5 terms in the House and then get elected senator, you only get 2 terms max. Just 8 years ago, the GOP held the majority in all branches...yet every failing they blamed on the Democrats for not letting them do "anything" they needed to do to make things "right". "Sorry, Presidency and both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court isn't enough! We have to concede too much to the Democrats!" In other words, they complained their power was insufficient. Every success was theirs, every failure was the fault of the other guys. Two years later they lost Congress. Two years after that they lost the White House...and then what did they say? "The Democrats have too much power!" Sauce for the goose is what, diamond-laced illegal drugs for the gander? The Democrats are just as bad, but they only held the reins uncontested for 2 years this century as opposed to the GOP's 6...but still both sides blame the other 100% for everything wrong. When some publicly say that the only solution is for the members of the other party to think like THEY do (frankly the most stupid thing I'd ever heard, and someone like that should be impeached on the grounds of being too big an idiot to hold public office), or in other words making a sideways remark that a 1-party state, with their party as that 1 of course, is the best solution, you see the path to a dictatorship clear as day. Neither side will give an inch because it makes THEM look bad, to hell with whether or not it's good for the country, and the people start to get fed up. Too much gridlock and people demand someone with the authority to steamroll over the blocks and get things done. If your public stance is not "you win some, you lose some" but "you win some, or at least you prevent the other side from winning even if you can't", you are actively promoting the conditions which led to the rise of people like Hitler and Stalin. An ineffective democracy that does not serve the people but only the politicians will not last.

We might know as soon as 12 hrs from now, or we might never know.

I thought he was referring to too few F-22s to stop massed hordes of enemy jets. Again, the F-22's performance against other fighters is largely irrelevant. What matters is the F-22 can escort friendly bombers, shoot down enemy fighters/bombers/cruise missiles, and drop bombs on enemy ground targets inside denied airspace. That doesn't mean "thick enemy fighters" it means "thick enemy SAMs and AAA." These countries have crap for air forces. Their anti-air forces, however, are formidable. We lost no F-117s or B-2s against Iraq. We DID lose some of everything else pretty much. Not to enemy fighters, to enemy SAMs and AAA. Other potential adversaries have equally crappy air forces to Iraq but equally good or better ground defenses. If I'm to protect Marines on the ground from enemy bombers, I'd prefer it to be in a plane the enemy can't track and has trouble seeing when they try and fire SAMs and AAA at me. I'm not that worried about a few fighters, those are easy for AWACS to see and warn me about. A SAM site, on the other hand, can be moved in under cover giving no warning of its existence till it broadcasts and fires in quick succession.

Yes, I recently used the SF2 installer (after reinstalling Win7 @ 64-bit) and after putting in my email and code from one game I saw all the SF2 titles plus all the DLC I'd bought and was able to get them all at once. Then I just had to copy over my mod folders from my external HD backup and I was done.

Makes me think MS should've made Flight a 360 game but made it more FSX-like. Think about how much they could get! Let the 3rd party guys still build stuff, but since it's on the 360 MS automatically has to get a piece of every sale, whether full disc or DLC. Let the stick makers make 360-compatible versions of their sticks that MS gets money for, and MS could release its own as well. Frankly, it's a lot easier to set up a 360 at your desk (or your home cockpit) then to get a PC gaming on a TV in the living room. Or to go less radical, Flight could've been the GA version of DCS World. Still have 3rd party people working on it, but it goes through them and they get a piece of every plane sold whether they made it or not. With Win8 and the Metro thing, it would've been a natural. Flight and all its addons only available thru their store. But oddly MS tried F2P then made the stuff you bought unappealing. If you want a WWII bird that can't fight in combat, you are going to want to a cockpit!! They took the worst part of FSX (no combat) and mixed it with the worst part of games like Ace Combat (no cockpit) and tried to sell it!

Yes, because it's a more hardcore simulation of that situation, even if the situation itself is fantastical. That's really my point. Take Birds of Prey for the consoles. All real planes, all real history, real weapons, etc. But the game itself is very UNreal because of how it's constructed. Then DayZ comes along with "zombie outbreak", never considered realistic because the whole scientific thing just fails on so many levels, but the way it models that world is uncompromising. Of course, I could argue that if the game wasn't MP only it would fail because they could never model the survivor AI to that same level. Just from playing a game like Left 4 Dead the game is almost unplayable solo because your allies are so brain dead. Personally I'd rather Arma 3 use weapons that don't exist yet but get it closer to real than to have current or historical weapons but give up on things like, I don't know, tank physics?? When I can drift a T-80 like Paul Walker in Tokyo, I think some tweaking is needed!

Yes, but the point is then you have to deal with a very limited plane set. I don't fly SF2 for the F-16A Netz. I don't fly it for the F-15A. I fly it for the Buccaneer, the Cheetah, MiG-23ML, MiG-31M, TSR2, Viggen, B-70, and assorted Yaks. I fly it for all the planes I can't fly in combat anywhere else. I just wish it had MP because I miss flying bomb-laden A-4s with a buddy flying F-4 escort against MiG-17s and 21s. I could be flying an A-7 with F-14 escort against Yak-38s and MiG-23s. I stopped flying F4, F4:AF, BMS, and the others because quite frankly after 20 years I'm a bit tired of the F-16. The Vipers have become the Kardashians of flight sims...they're everywhere, overexposed, and even though I have all of them for SF2 I almost never touch them. I don't mind flying with them or against them, but to fly AS them holds little appeal. I spent all of the 90s flying the F-15E in various sims, but in this century only the 3rd party one for SF has existed so I'm willing to go that route for DCS when it comes out. But honestly the Harrier and MiG-21 interest me more than the F-15E, possibly just because I did spend a few years with Jane's F-15 and I feel like I've traveled that road. That was the highest fidelity you could get at the time, and it satisfied me.

People who think war can be eliminated are quite simply poor studies of human nature. They think they have evolved past that point, ergo the entire species must have. In all truth, however, it likely wouldn't take a large effort to get said proponent of mass peace to change their minds. Cripple them, kill a loved one, threaten to take all they have to give it to those who supposedly need it more...whatever, it's not hard. I can tell you from watching 1 yr olds at play that humans are inherently violent when they don't get their way. When the US is becoming increasingly polarized to the extent that in a couple of decades I can see the party in power voting to outlaw the other party for "unAmerican" activities and instigating a full-scale civil war just so they don't have to COMPROMISE on their 100% correct beliefs (because obviously the others must then be horribly wrong and need to be put down), I say anyone who thinks we can just move past war in our lifetimes, or that of our children, or our grandchildren, is simply deluded. You can't make all humans think the same thing. Since we are then wired to see those who disagree or do what we don't want as adversaries, we're stuck.

People with AKs, RPGs, and IEDs are no threat to airplanes. Unless you believe they will magically conjure masses of MiGs from thin air to oppose them?

Ah, living the dream.

DCS A-10C is one plane. Lomac/Flaming Cliffs (the 3rd iteration for DCS World is due out soon) was A-10A, F-15C, Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27, Su-33, and MiG-29A, G, and C. http://lockon.co.uk/flaming_cliffs_2/ Looking for mods? http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/

Yes, today. Tell me what we'll need in 15 years when everything is different yet again. In 1997 no one would've guessed what we'd be doing in just 5 years, let alone 15. The Typhoon, F-22, and F-35 are the frontline for the next several decades. Today is pretty much irrelevant.

She's 62 now, what can you expect? This is from almost 3 years ago, when she was 59 I guess.

Cant' TK add bulges using the same FakePilot method the modders have done? Now making a DLC that has a SMALLER 3d model, that would be different. Such as taking his B-52D and releasing a DLC B-52H with the smaller tail fin (not that he would as they're nonflyables, just illustrating the point).

There, fixed that for you. When more people buy your game in a few months over 2 years after release because of a zombie mod than did in pretty much the entire previous release period, you take notice. Will Arma 3 have Day-Z built-in to sell more people on paying full price? Or will it be a separate game totally? You know they're crunching the numbers and whichever will make them more is the way they'll go.

You should read "50 Shades of Erin Gray", a steamy behind-the-scenes look at the making of Buck Rogers.

LOMAC is moddable to an extent. Not as much as TW sims, but still a bit. Not sure if the AI is, though. Also, I wouldn't say DCS is "moving away" from helos just because the last release was the A-10. Back around the Ka-50's release the AH-64 was mentioned. It has since vanished from their lips, but it could always reappear. Combined Arms is all ground units. They're moving towards "everything but infantry" right now.

Yes, the Dalton films were an attempt at more realism and grittiness (although the realism was still over-the-top, but at least nothing crazy like some of the Moore and Connery films like rockets inside volcanoes or space shuttles fighting in orbit) but they failed because apparently the audience in the late 80s didn't want that. The success of the Brosnan films and their return to the Moore format proved that. The 21st century audiences, though, didn't care as much for that and Casino Royale proved it.

Why did his kids spill Coke on your laptop?

Fighters haven't been a major "game-changer" since Vietnam. It's been bombers for the last 25 years that have accomplished everything. and there stealth HAS made a difference. Only one plane lost in combat due to stupidity in the planning phase.

I think the only one I've seen different is one in the Middle East. Abu Dhabi maybe? Or Qatar? It's gloss white with red lettering on it. Ah, found it. Qatar. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Emiri-Air/Boeing-C-17-Globemaster/1559021/L/

Wonder how long till Exp 3 and the F1?

I don't see the big difference. Where is Everon? Takistan? Chernarus? None of those places exist. Might as well be fighting on Pandora or Tattooine. The equipment was usually real, but half the forces using them weren't. Now BIS is playing fortune teller, and not that far out either. I mean, even the great Arthur C Clarke thought in the late 60s we'd have permanent bases on the Moon by the 1990s. I think it's obvious that after modeling current military equipment for the last 10 years BIS was interested in branching out to stuff on the drawing boards or concepts. Big deal. It's not like there won't be a bus load of mods of the current stuff for it. I mean, people hardly touch the stock Arma 2 stuff anyway!

The point is the local commander wanted the plane shot down, not run off. He was so eager for that he wasn't going to believe it if the pilot said that it was an airliner because of where it was. He believed it HAD to be a 135, so it was going down. Anything he said after was regret for his own bad judgement.