Salamander67

I would agree completly with you, if it wasn't for one thing: the fame that the MS Flight Sim name has aquired. When MS releases the next one, it will probably be a disappointment for the simming community. But what about the seven-year olds who ask their mothers for an "airplane game"? Their parents will go to the stores, and there they will find MS FS, togheter with some alternatives. As they probably wont have too much of an idea about the pros and cons of different sims, they will choose based on the look of the box, and the reputation of the companies. Now, I doubt that my mother could identify Ubisoft, and then my brother and sisters have a shelf full of Ubisoft games for PC annd PS2. However, she most certainly can identify Microsoft. Bottomline, when Microsoft takes up the FS product-line again, they can afford releasing a few quite bad sims, because they will sell them anyway. After a while, they have trained up a bunch of new guys, and so a good sim might eventually appear. The closing of Aces might be a small disaster for the flight-simming community, but I doubt that it will have such a great effect on the sales-figures of the MS FS series when/if it is restarted. Sad but true.

To begin with, I'm a great Vulcan-fan, personally I'd say it's the most beatuifull strategic bomber ever built. In reality, I doubt I'd ever fly one more than once or twice if it appeared in Jet Thunder. My idea of Combat Sim is not navigating over endless oceans in pitch black to drop bombs on a runway half-way round the world. It sure would be intresting to balance the plane-set, but I think the majority of simmers (and gamers ) would prefer a unbalanced planeset with some choppers added in a sequel than a balanced plane-set including the Vulcan. However, I certainly agree that the team should do what feels right for them, I know I'll buy it anyway!

I would say that the AI is okay, yes, there are several problems, but nothing making the game unplayable. I'm a quite crappy pilot, but I managed to escape from a low-level dogfight with two Bf 109F on the tail of my MiG-3, and actually reach my home plate with a plane in working condition (a few holes there, some broken glas, a tiny smoke trail, but nothing serious). Needless to say, next time I tried it I was overconfident and ended up crating a nice big hole in the ground.

Wouldn't be surprised if MS FS came back in some form or another after the current financial crises has ended, the name is simply too well known to give up.

I do think I've done it, although I didn't time it... If we allow launches from the second floor it's a certain positive. The person below me knows what happens "when you're out of sixes"

Nah, small-caliber fire aint good at killing zombies. An axe is probably better, aim for the head!

Would the laser really be used as a replacement for the big guns or would it be used as a "less lethal"-weapon (think huge flashbang )?

And don't forget that the gaming industry as a whole is a quite competitive niche. After all, MS is really big on OS and their Office-package. When a crises like this hits, then it's natural to focus on core products, and stop competing with full-time gaming giants like EA and Activision Blizzard. Sad but true.

Yeah, that's probably right. However, there are some dangers in the Gulf. Subs may not fare well in shallow water, but that is more of a problem for the 688 and Seawolf-class than for the smaller SSK's. Also we have a true brown-water situation, with all the associated problems of mines, FAC's, land based missiles and so on. Granted the US would win, but there's no denying the possibility of a lucky shot damaging or destroying a major surface vessel. ...but this has pretty little to do with the original story, so it's probably by faaaar OT.

One word: Kilo/Paltus SSK Yes, the navy isn't too much of a treat, but they have tree quite modern SSK, and they could be a problem. Also, ask the Israelis, even old AShM can be a real problem, and there are several both on FAC's and on land in Iran.

Agreed, it sounds like a remake of the lighthouse myth. ...And having served a year driving a 13-ton landing craft I would argue that not a single guy responsible for navigation on any boat/ship in any navy would mistake the lights from a lighthouse with those of a surface vessel. There are very strict rules on which lights going were on a ship, just to make sure things like that doesn't happen. However, facts aside, they are good stories!

Looks nice, congrats! (however, before someone else starts making fun of it, I think the word you are looking for is "scratch", when something is scratch-built it is completly new. When something is built from scrap, then it's a built from junk)

Fascinating. In my country it's the other way around. If one witnesses an accident, one is legally obliged to help as much as one can. I don't know what will become of this world if people starts suing their helpers, not to talk about their doctors (which is happening already).

Well, I'm certainly with you on the part about the fact that one should be able to choose freely about what to play. If one likes the Bf 109 or Fw 190, then let them fly for the Luftwaffe! However, as well as being allowed to do that without being called a neonazi, one should also be free to choose not to play for Lw (or any other force), without being yelled at. We all see these things differently, and I think that is the way it should be.

Probably a long way left before anything like this happens, but as they say: every rumor has some truth in it: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

It's a challenging question, what games one plays and how one then play them. First I think it's fair to say that all are allowed to choose for themselves, I usually play for all sides in most games, just for the fun of it. War is cruelty, and although it is fair to say that some regimes are more cruel than others (e.g. Nazis and Stalinist Soviet), flying for them for me does not mean I embrace their ideas. However, I can imagine that I would find it rather worrying if I had a child who constantly would choose to fly for Germany or the Soviets, as it could lead to a unhealthy interest that no one knows what it would lead to. After a certain age (which is highly individual) this risk disappears (or at least diminishes), as adults knows the difference between games and history. Finland is not usually included in games, but I often download some new aircrafts with the von Rosen shield in Blue and take them for a flight. In Blitzkrieg I have played the Winter War mission from the Soivet side, and I had no problem with that. However, I do not usually play any FPS, because I feel that attempting to single out one person and try to kill him is over the line for me. The line is vauge, but I feel that going after an aircraft in a sim (which obviously sometimes means that the pilot & crew dies) is more acceptable, as well as letting small tanks fight it out in a RTS. This is no absolute line, but I've found that for the moment it works fine for me. First and foremost it's also about the fact that in real life I'm a hunter, and owning firearms I do not want to have pictures of me shooting people in my head when I go to the range or the forest.

That's exactly what I meant, although the combat value of a few MiG's is quite small (thinking about the experience of the pilots & ground crew, possible lack of spares, and so on) their importance in restoring national pride and showing that the national armed forces are something more than yet another armed gang should not be underestimated. ...and as also noted, I doubt that the Russians are just giving away things because they're in a good mood. Further arms sales or docking rights are probably high on their wish list.

MiG-29's are no real threat to anyone in the area. They wont do any good as mud-movers in the clashes between Hezbollaha and the army, and they wont pose much of a threath for either the Israelis or the Syrians. However, fast-movers are nice to show on flypasts, and as noted this will probably open up for more sales of hardware that might be really usefull (lightly used tanks and APC's).

I'm quite sure they are the same game, I remember seeing TK stating that somewhere in the Thirdwire forum. But this question is really a quite important one, are there a patch coming for COI? Or are those who have bought it basically beyond hope

Being in the service is always a risk, however, losing good men in times of peace always feels unnessecary. RIP

And a jump in the logic is the fact that as the F-16 does have a bigger RCS than F-35, a better radar will spot the F-16 farther away than the F-35, all other things equal (i.e. not going into the field were wavelengths are harmonising with parts of the aircraft). No change in balance? Yeah, well I guess the Israelis feel that is better than having a negative shift in balance if they stuck with F-16's and Syria bought new radars.

No way! The Sa'ar 5 is a seriously big boat for the Israelis, and it's still a corvette/ light frigate. The navy has always been the last in line when it comes to the defence budget (understandably), and although it has a quite high standard of equipment and training, I don't think there's any possibility of them operating "very big ships". Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, what we are talking about is a DG with a helipad large enough for a F-35B (probably lacking hangar), but I seriously doubt that. In the end, what strategic interests do the Israelis have that needs fighter protection so far away from their coastline that they need a sea-going fighter? I mean, it isn't even called the "Navy", but rather the "Sea Corps" (if I've understood it right). And with the financial crisis (NIS down against the dollar, Tel-Aviv stock exchange going down), I doubt there's money for anything that's not desperatly needed.

So you're betting on a change in the IDF/AF paint system? Might very well be. That would explain why they dropped the change in camo-pattern they had planned for the fleet last year.

Might be that RAM-paint only comes in black and grey ...or then they're just trying to fool all armchair generals

Now, what no one seems to have commented on is why the Israelis want their F-35's to be grey. AFAIK the Israelis only use grey on their top air superiority fighters, and only then if they don't have a secondary air to ground tasking. At the moment (correct me if I'm wrong) the only grey fast-jets in Israeli service are their F-15A/B/C/D, with all F-16', F-15I, SKyhawks, Phantoms and so on, having received camouflage. That would indicate that they A) are going to repaint the entire fleet (ok, it's not that big, but anyway), or, B) will use their F-35's mainly for air-to-air missions (all talks of it being a "bombtruck" ignored), or, C) their going to do a revision of their paint schemes, and I honestly can't say why it would be better to have uncamouflaged fighters if you count on having them do attack missions (except perhaps for some wheight loss).