JediMaster

I remember when Acceleration came out ACES made some brief comments about how they were laying the foundation for an eventual return of the CFS series.

So much for that.

We had a bomber like that...didn't the B-36 have wings so thick the engineer could walk inside them?

I'm not worried about our subs at all. I'm worried about their subs attacking surface vessels with little or no warning, taking the "first shot" as it were.

If we get in a shooting war with Iran's navy, we're going to wish we'd kept the S-3Bs around.

Right. The game is brand new, so modding for it is in its infancy (relatively).

At this time after SFP1's release we had little to go on and had to make do with what it had and what little we could do ourselves without tools.

A year later and OH what a difference.

Personally, I don't know which of TK's sims I consider the best "out of the box"...probably WOI. While SF2 has numerous improvements over WOI's release, the lack of MP and the lesser diversity of the planeset knock it down to 2nd.

I'm not talking about how I feel about each of them now, purely on how I felt about each of them at their release.

I hope TK does make a sim designed for more robust MP, but I do NOT want a focus on H2H. I want it designed for coop!!

I think that's Il-2's greatest flaw...the MP focus was on H2H and the AI was left to fester and ooze.

Yeah, CN3 comes out tomorrow. I'll be grabbing that one for sure.

I've also been going back and rereading the older novels again. I've stopped for a time due to having a bunch of new books to read, and rereading my B5 novels, but I'll be going back to it soon.

Of course, there are PSU's you can buy which are modular, like the one I have. As long as you replace it with a model with the same style plug I can just disconnect all the cables from the PSU and swap it out without having to mess with the connectors on my drives and mobo.

Vista's problem is backwards compatibility. If you don't run any old programs, or have any old hardware, it's really not too bad.

Except for where I work, where the security changes in Vista have made secure websites that had no issues on XP a total nightmare.

I also had FS2 from Sublogic on my Atari, and later FS4 on my PC, but that was it. I still play CFS3 from time to time as well as OFF. I dumped my Korea mod for it when there was enough done for TK's sims to be modded.

I think CFS4 was in beta when it was canned, which really puzzles me. The shots I saw indicated it was really far along and couldn't have cost them too much more at that point to just finish and release it.

Remember, though, with so many of these businesses now making a profit is no longer good enough, you have to make ENOUGH profit so that the stupid "analysts" don't say you "failed to meet expectations" and send your stock lower.

Iran's AF isn't a threat, but their SAMs certainly are. Of course, as they're only in their own territory that limits the threat to others.

Their navy and IRBMs are another story.

The problem was the engines weren't powerful enough back then to make such a thing practical.

Today they are!

Yes, Windows will scan every picture in a photo folder and generate a thumbnail for it. This shouldn't be a problem unless you have either A) very little RAM free, B) a googleplex of pictures or pictures that are massive in size (multiple MB each), or C) a horribly fragmented HD. If none of those 3 is the case, I also declare the OS install to be "hosed" and in need of a reload!

The main issue is spoofing a missile you don't have eyes on is VERY hard. If you're lucky enough to see it launch in front of you, you'll probably be able to break its lock. If not, radar missiles show on the RWR and help you find them with your eyes. IR missiles are just the hand of God swatting you from the sky.

I've not bought any sim twice, but I've bought every one TK has released, along with DCS, F4:AF, every Il-2 release, and so on.

I don't go for MMOs or any online subscription based idea.

I've never bought payware for any sim except once--Firepower for CFS3. I felt that was pretty much the unofficial CFS3 expansion pack.

There are several I didn't get for various reasons, like Enemy Engaged 2 and Whirlwind over Vietnam, and I don't care about flight without combat, so I don't go for X Plane or MSFS.

I will get a release from FO if it has combat (not trainers), good all around SP and MP, and is $50 or less. The rest is fluff I don't want or need.

I like Zep, Floyd, and the Stones as well as Metallica.

I don't give two shakes of my cheeks over the bowl for Slipknot.

There's no points for claiming you're great in music.

(See Jerry Lee Lewis)

I doubt the lighthouse one only because I'm not aware that A) many of them are manned anymore and B) they'd be watching approaching ships or have a radio to use. That's more a harbor deal.

I'm going to guess that TK's engine doesn't support directed energy weapons yet.

She's a very kinky girl

The kind you don't take home to mother...

The problem with the F-117 is it's a bit of a bore to fly. Onyl carried 2 LGBs max, don't think it ever used anything else operationally.

Although it was never publicly stated, I don't think it had any ECM or chaff/flares. Antennas were a problem for stealth in the 80s until they came up with a fix, and dispensers require openings.

The F-117 relied simply on HMS Training Film (No. 42, PARA. 6.) "How Not To Be Seen."

One time it was, over Bosnia.

My geography meter is pegging.

How does one fly thru Iraqi airspace going from Kandahar to Dubai?

I would think they would fly over Pakistan (shortest route). Otherwise they're being forced to fly the long way around, like flying from LA to Miami thru NYC.

You have to wonder why so often things that work well aren't simply transplanted from one airframe to another but instead they make a whole new thing from scratch. At least the jammers for the EA-6 were used on the F-111 and now the EA-18G. Then there was that ASPJ fiasco.

I know they still need to replace the older AC-130s, and something tells me we'll never find a better replacement...than a newer AC-130!

Oh, that plane. I never remember the name, I always think of it as "the twin-engined C-130 lookalike that's not a C-27".

I don't think the AI can make the plane fly faster than possible.

I think they can make it fly as fast as possible 100% of the time. They always have maximum possible acceleration, as well as deceleration. Many a time has an AI been pulling away from me and while I'm trying to catch up it slams on the virtual brakes and I nearly overshoot it. No flaps, no speedbrakes, no maneuvers, they just seem to have ultimate control over that prop.

I've seen the same thing from AI in racing sims. They don't use traction control or antilock brakes, but they can put the vehicle right on the edge where they get maximum traction for acceleration, deceleration, and turns. From a dead stop, they pull away from you. From a top-speed run, they can stop shorter than you. They lose a lot less speed in the corners.

It's not the plane, it's the fact that the AI flies it like no human possibly could because we only have 2 hands.

As for the .50s taking out a Zero, of course they can. My point is that it takes TOO MANY rounds to do it, and far too many areas of the plane seem to be "free fire" zones where you can pour in every round you have and get nothing but damaged textures to show for it with no crippling of the plane, let alone fire, lost parts, or a kill. Likewise the enemy bullets seem to be 2/3 "golden BBs" where every time I take a hit SOME critical system (or the pilot) is hit.

I was going to say, "I know that cockpit!" I remember it well from Jane's F-15 which I flew a lot of 11 years ago.

It's a typical problem. You need to upgrade a fleet of planes, but you don't have the money to do them all. Instead of trying to have 2 separate standards (which already exists enough in the USAF, USN, etc) they decided to retire 1/3 of them early. This meant you only had to pay to upgrade 2/3 of the planes plus the money saved from not operating that other 1/3 could be directed into the upgrades. It was a good plan, it just came off sounding bad.

The B-52s fly different missions from the B-1 now, so they want to keep them still flying as well. In theory they could have dumped the B-52s and used the money for THOSE to upgrade and run the other 1/3 of the B-1 fleet, but as FC mentioned the B-1 is no longer nuclear while the 52's still are. We don't have enough B-2s to carry the nuclear mission alone.

That's a true oddity of Il-2 AI. They can't hit you if they're on your six, or any plane for that matter. I've watched them fire nonstop for a minute, every shot missing, and never correcting.

However, make it a deflection shot, or make the mistake of trying to get them OFF your six, and they hose you every time?

What always gets me is when a "real life" tactic fails against the AI. You can't out-dive a AI P-38 in Il-2, because as mentioned there's no effect on their controls. You can't outturn a Zero at high speed for the same reason.

I watched Dogfights on the History Channel and an F4F pilot mentioned they liked going head-on with Zeros because their engine acted like a big shield while their guns would rip up the Zero in seconds. Yet in Il-2 the .50s the American fighters get are like BB guns and the Zeros have RPGs launched from their 20mm cannons that never miss and will kill your engine, or you, in any head-on.