JediMaster
-
Content count
9,968 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by JediMaster
-
-
I've not done it myself, but I'd guess under X:\Program Files\Ubisoft\IL-2 Sturmovik 1946\Missions\Single\<plane nationality>\<plane designation of what you fly as>?
-
You had all the digital downloads? '46, Pe-2, Sturms over Manchuria? Wow, I thought only the diehards had all that.
Anyway, there's a single patch to bring you up to 4.08m. It's about 150MB. I have no memory where I DL'd it from.
-
[Cartman]
Sweet!
[/Cartman]
-
E-2 has that big ol' radar which sees surface targets at a LONG range.
-
I'm surprised it's kept rather quiet...although again I think of people complaining about the cost that could be incurred by these "free" flights and I'm not.
-
Airbus' complaint seems to stem from the fact that they're civil aircraft-only and don't like competing against a company that does civil and military.
No one is stopping them from going military, too. Actually, their tanker and transport programs are military as well. However, since Airbus is multinational and most countries want a national defense company and not multinational, they face an uphill battle there.
I doubt Boeing will split in half to satisfy them.
The funny thing is Boeing also does rockets, yet I don't recall Airbus complaining about that. Oh, that's right, they don't do that either.
The companies are NOT equal. Perhaps their civil aircraft subsidiaries are (which in Airbus is the whole company), but not the rest. Both sides need to acknowledge that.
-
Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
-
This has always been the problem with the Euro acquisition process...they buy simple now and plan to upgrade later. Then when the price for upgrade later comes up, they balk that it wasn't done in the first place! Like, uh, hello? That's why it didn't cost MORE to start with!
The problem is the Typhoon dates from an early 80's requirement. It took 20 years to be made, not in small part because of the multinational conflict of requirements. Too many cooks in the kitchen and such. France went their own way because their requirements differed a little too much, they thought they could do it faster, and naturally they thought they'd be better.
As it stands, Rafale barely beat the Typhoon into service and just now got a "quick fix" upgrade to release AG weapons for deployment to Afghanistan--like its big sister, it also was designed for AA work first. By contrast, the F-22 was designed to the same idea--AA work only--but before service entry was modified to the point that it will be possible to use AG weapons (not all, but a few) right away. Why is that? More money spent up front.
You have to pay one way or the other. However, it seems the Euro public by and large wants to spend .05% of GDP on defense.
-
On the contrary, not only can I wait, I can wait a long time!
-
I believe it was a deliberate 4/1 spoof on their part.
-
The EA-3...now THAT was a whale of a plane.
-
Right, the problem with Op DS is that it's much later than the planes available for the game generally model. With Tornados, F-111s, F-15Es, F-16Cs, and F-15Cs it is possible to simulate it to a certain extent, but no one has done a campaign like Burning Sands '91 for it.
-
I think the A-7K isnt a bad looking version of the A-7 family! But that SU-27/33 KUB looks like a SU-34 testbed to me.The Su-34 will replace the Su-24 as a long-range interdiction plane. It will fill the same roles as the F-111 and F-15E. I'm sure its performance compared to a regular Flanker is similar to the Beagle's performance compared to the standard F-15C.
The Su-33KUB is a combat-capable trainer (hence the large nose radar the 34 doesn't have) for teaching carrier ops. It's literally a 33 with a 2nd seat but side-by-side instead of front-back. The last plane I can think of that did that was the TF-102, actually.
-
The A-10 isn't too tough, but the Russian planes require some real time to learn and the F-15 can be a bit frustrating.
-
That's hard to say. By and large the community went with every addon and merged them for FB+AEP+PF as a single game.
Should you only have an earlier version with fewer planes/maps to use, there are a number of problems you could encounter trying to use these downloads. Not just needing an object or map you don't have, but other things have changed over the years as well and a mission could be impossible to complete or such as a result.
The safest bet would be to look for the oldest files you can find, from back when FB was alone out there! I think that was 2003? I believe AEP came out in 2004 and Pac Fighters was 2005? My memory is a bit fuzzy...
-
Where'd you get the ATT from?
-
I remember flying a B-1B in F4 (modded) and attacking an airfield with 84 82's blasting it to pieces. It was FUN. I was at around 200ft when I dropped them. They were retarded bombs, of course, or I would not have lived.
-
The Daily Show is perfect at skewering those two-faced politicians.
-
Sorry, the Su-34/32FN/27IB is not the best looking 2-seat Flanker.
That honor goes to the Su-27/33KUB!
-
I remember reading that the F-16XL actually seemed to perform better than the conventional version.
-
It's not always so much how FAR you pull the stick back, it's how FAST. For example, full back in half a second = blackout. Take 1.5 seconds, no blackout.
-
actually you can. If you are flying a mission using an aircraft that needs to have a pod loaded, you can load the pod on any OTHER aircraft in the flight and you can drop the LGB. Or the reverse. Works great.but if you meant having a FAC do the lasing, you are quite right.
Oh, so it works if your flight of planes have dissimilar loadouts.
I was thinking of the buddy lasing deals where say a GR.4 lases and a Jaguar drops, or something like that. Those are different flights.
-
Reminds me of that scene in Under Siege when Tommy Lee Jones goes flying backwards when it fires.
-
Does a model exist of the 1st Phantom? I believe it was designated F4-H or something like that, not talking about a Rhino version, it served before that. I have looked all over but have not found one yet.Thanks!
Do you mean this one? The FH-1?
http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/phantom1.htm
In that case, no, it's never been done.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...f-4-history.htm
Or do you mean this one, the F4H-1 nee F-4A? http://usslexington.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=106
As fewer than 50 F-4As were built before production switched to the B, it's a minor footnote to the plane's overall history.
Project 1 Video Issues
in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 1 Series - General Discussion
Posted
As the patches have progressed, TW has improved the capabilities of the engine. The result is the game requires more out of your PC now then it did 2 years ago. The 5600 was a mid-range DX9 first-gen card from nVidia. Since then, the card has been greatly surpassed. It is a 4 yr old card now, as you can see from this review back then: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=15
I would think you could turn down the details, otherwise you may have to keep the game at its 2005 or so patch level. Your card has simply stood still while the gaming world has moved on.