JediMaster

The costs idea is relative. So far, UAVs have an appalling amount of attrition. Outside combat losses, which aren't all that different so far, they're being lost on t/o, landing, and to general technical issues (like the one over Iran) that manned planes don't suffer from.

What good will it be if the UAVs cost half as much but we lose 3 times as many? The Global Hawk Blk 30 was canned because of 2 reasons: it wasn't better than the U-2, and in fact was possibly inferior; and it cost a LOT more than it was supposed to.

Stealthy UAVs will always be expensive because stealth is, and I don't think they're good enough at keeping themselves intact yet. Sure you can make swarms of the cheap ones, and in fact they are, but they have their own limitations. They don't go as far, they can't do as much, and you're always losing them in droves so you never stop building them. Also, there's no secret. We send a few dozen Predators into Iran and there's no hiding it.

UAVs have their place, but I don't think we're even close to their place being "totally replacing manned aircraft". The software is not good enough yet, not by half.

It can't be moddable.

Number of Players: 1 - MMOG

It's online, which means everyone has to have the same setup.

There's also this:

Sign up for an account today and get FREE TRAINING

and Fly for ONE MONTH FREE.

Oooh, the excitement that did NOT generate in me. As for realism, who can say. It might, but there's others like Aces High and Warbirds still out there, isn't there?

Real Genius was the 2nd film I saw him in, but granted it was great.

The first was Top Secret! from the makers of Airplane! and Kentucky Fried Movie. That was a great film too.

The rover has reported an appalling lack of cell signal.

"Like downtown NYC" it said.

I'm beginning to think TK doesn't WANT to get any bigger. Yes he's hoping to bring home more money with this, but I don't think his "dream" is a Thirdwire in TX the size of ED or 777 or anywhere CLOSE.

When he says "don't have the resources" he's not saying "if we sold more we could", he's saying "I don't think that will ever happen". It's easier to blame money because everyone gets that, but I think he likes his job being his business and vice versa and controlling everything himself. So when he says "no", it means it would take him so long to do he'd not be able to release anything else in the meantime, the cash influx would slow, and he'd go broke. Unless SF2 sells like Minecraft or Doom and makes him rich overnight, no normal increase in sales from any of his programs are going to sway him.

TK seems to like where he is now, whether consciously or unconsciously, and I don't think we're going to see an SF2 or SF3 heading towards LOMAC levels, let alone DCS. He'll continue to throw little things in as time goes on (like TWS radar) while at the same time slowly locking away what can be accessed (because he's realized he can sell mods for his own game), but if there's an SF4 that is released in 2020 for example, it will be closer to what SFP1 was on day 1 than LOMAC was on day 1.

Because that's what TK wants, and no one can make him do different.

Let him sell all the mobile games he wants and make the money. If I was him, I would. I wonder if he can get it running on iOS if that means he could get it onto Macs? Not that it's a big market, but it would likely sell well given how few sims there are for Macs.

Nope, but I have them in SF2 already anyway, so whether those come along or not is no big deal to me.

Of course, at this point pretty much ANY plane TK would find popular enough to do has been done by 3rd parties, so...

I think the only one I can imagine that I don't have is the failed Boeing JSF submission!

Except that DCS seems to be opening up a path the other developers claimed was impossible: survey sim covering all of aviation history, but with each aircraft being detailed to the level of a study sim.

Still waiting to see ED defy all the claims: big companies say their is not enough money in flight sims, little companies say they don't have the budget to make anything better than flight games.

ED may hit the niche just right as Microsoft has folded and X-Plane just doesn't compete with DCS on a lot of levels.

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...

JediMaster, you are 100% correct except for one thing... If you look at the history of thr United States you'll see we were always extremely polarized, (to the point that we fought a very costly civil war over certain political differences). I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it would be very difficult for the "party in power" to outlaw the opposition (I agree they all have wanted to-back to the beginnings of the Republic). The reason Representatives are elected for two years, Senators for two, Presidents for four, and members of the Supreme Court for life is to prevent those cycles from synching and allowing that kind of power to accrue to either (any) side. The Founders were actually some pretty smart cookies; they knew that sometimes, gridlock is a good thing.

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.

That's exactly Gepard's point.

 

There's no use in a stealth-fighter, when the major job consists of dropping bombs on infantry. Pretty much any aircaft is "stealthy" in that mission. When carrying a huge amount of (needed) extra gas and extra payload, supposed-to-be stealthy aircraft actually aren't.

What you're left off with is an onderperforming aircraft that can't benefit of it's main "advantage" that compromised it's performance.

 

 

I wonder if there will be any F-35B put in harm's way (remember the mortar-attacks on Da Nang and Chu-Lai?) on a forwarded base with the Marines.

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.

Thanks for showing it, but I will wait until the Mirage F.1. BTW, If you purchase a DLC is like when you buy a gae that you can download every time you need?

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.

The coming enemy will be the states of the "arabellion", when they are taken over by the islamic forces. We will need a plane to hold down their human waves. I cant see how we could do it with the F-22.

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).

Third Wire and Bohemia games are supposed to make money when they tap the niche markets missed by the mega-million blockbuster games, not become just another console game or iPad app that is indistinguishable from the dozens already saturating the market unless that makes them more money.

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.