SayethWhaaaa

Brain, what's the name of that book? I've got different stats from my sources, just curious.

Yes and no. The J-7C did have improvements over the Mig-21MF's avionics, but they were very limited improvements (somewhat increased fuel capacity, new hud and some new avionics). Most of it was based around the JL-7 fire-control radar, but it's reliability was very poor and required significant down time between jaunts to recalibrate. Also, it was significantly heavier than the previous radar (something like 107kgs), had an operational range of 29kms and suffered poorly from background clutter when attempting to target low flying aircraft. It also used the same engine, the WP-13 that was used on the J-7A/B variants. So the added weight of the fuel and the newer radar restricted it's agility to being less than that of previous versions. The first variant to resemble the early model F-16As didn't appear until the J-7E and that didn't go into production until 1992. There's a great article in Combat Aircraft monthly on the J-7, J-8, J-10 and J-11 that covers their historical development in the June 2010 issue.

*ahem*, blown out dude. This is a flight simming site! We should know about these things! So LeT and the Pakistani Taliban have already arced up for some attention about this. Even Imran Khan has been calling for a retaliatory execution of Sarabjit Singh in response to this. Sandesh, remember when this guy used to be a decent cricketer, before he became a political opportunist, media whore and hypocrite? Is he aware he's a joke, or are they too embarrassed to tell him in Pakistan?

Oh yeah, big time! The deer scene was kinda funny though. I think the only thing I liked about it was seeing Adrianne Palicki kick some ass and look good doing it. Check out this review: http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=19923&reviewer=389 It's bang on, especially about the Subway store scene.

I don't think Stary is telling us the whole star-- story. I think the situation played out a little more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k

You can't fly the built-in B-52D per se, but with a little modding (ie, adding a cockpit), you can. But there's a sweet B-52 superpack for both gen 1 and gen 2 that has a very nice B-52D. Have a look in the download section, it shouldn't be too hard to find. As for the bombing practice, have a look in the Knowledge Base, I think, otherwise, if you do a search for 'bombing accuracy', 'level bombing' or 'learning to bomb', there should be a thread or two dedicated to it. I know there have definitely been some guides made about level bombing, I'm just not sure where specifically. Also, you can't destroy runways with gunfire of any kind, so that rules out gunships... Such a shame!

Finally! 9 games deep into the series and they're finally introducing features introduced in other FPS from more than 8 years ago. On that basis I might check it out, but I don't want to support the blatant Activision money grab, so I'm going to grab it on the cheap.

Yeah, had a chance to see it with a buddy. MY GOD it was bad, so much so that it made Home Front actually look okay by comparison. So stoked neither of us spent any money on it! But it was definitely a waste of free passes and 90+ minutes of my life I'll never get back...

You can find one in the Yankee Air Pirates mod for gen 1. It's payware though.

Has anyone seen this yet? I have a chance to go see this on the weekend and I'm tossing up whether or not to go because I'm getting the creeping feeling it's not so much a remake of Red Dawn, but a film of that lame, just godawful game Home Front. I mean, it hasn't helped that the story is about a North Korean invasion and that it takes place in probably the furthest, most difficult spot for them to invade, the East coast. I mean, logistically alone, it makes no sense and the Russians are supposed to have funded it...? Wha...? I hope I've read wrong, because the original was a brilliant, cold war paranoia classic!

I though I read somewhere that you can customise your loadout before starting a level, similar to GRAW 2 and Vietcong. Is this true? I hope so, it's a feature I've desperately missed since those aforementioned games.

heh, let me my soapbox. I see where you went wrong there. GlobalSecurity is hardly the place to go for stats as some of those numbers have barely changed since 2K9 or, in some instances, earlier and a lot of this information is a bit of a cut and paste job from other websites. There are a lot of generalisations in those stats too. For example, counting all variants of the J-8 as 3rd gen aircraft for example. Later model J-8s (F,G,H) use modern avionics, the last 2 modern variants entered service in the early 2000s and are in production or conversion now. The J-11 is counted as a 'third gen' aircraft too (gimme a break, same era as the F-4?? lol!) and there is no distinction between it and the much more modern J-11A (multi-role, pgm capable, glass cockpit, etc). There's no distinction between the variants of the Q-5A and it's later, pgm capable, EFIS variants, the H-6 and it's variants, the J-7... and on and on... Well, duh. You're the United States! You have more aircraft in your combined services than most of the top ten militaries combined! One aircraft carrier has more aircraft than 70% of the countries in the world! One USN has more punching power than my nations air force! But that also doesn't mean they can be moved into a single AO to face a potential enemy given their dispersal and operational commitments. This statement has as much credibility as any youtube argument. Competitors influence (or 'steal') ideas from each other all the time! One nation will always claim it's done "the hard yards" in developing something, but the truth is, you don't need to reinvent the wheel each time you want to build or expand on something. Because one air force uses bolt on designator kits and a competitor starts doing the same, it just proves there's validity and practicality in the concept. This isn't defending China's woeful record on hacking and copyright infringement. You can find as much evidence about that at wiki leaks as you can satisfy yourself with. These arguments are silly. I heard it when people compared the Mig-29 and Su-27 to the F-15. When they compared the A-10 to the Su-25 (a bit of a stretch), jeez, even the Il-76 to the C-141! East and West are perpetually playing the game of "Match, exceed and overcome" with military hardware and things that work well often share similar characteristics. Remember when a lot of people here said the Sukhoi T-50 resembled a YF-23? That's a "some people say..." argument. Like, "Some people say the F-14's maintenance per flight hour was prohibitively high for modern combat operations", Yeah? So what? Doesn't mean it wasn't good at what it did. I hear this constantly about the F-22 and B-2 and their plethora maintenance issues. Mig-29s built in the 70s and 80s required herculean maintenance efforts, but successive version, specifically, through each generation, they are redesigned to minimise maintenance requirements, though i don't think you'll ever see simplicity levels like SAAB's Viggen these days. Comparatively. That's a relative statement. What are they carrying for what mission? And so on. Yeah, the Russians had/have issues with this with their Su-33s, but the big difference between them and the PLAN with the J-15s is that the J-15 is based on the J-11B and heavily indebted to the Sukhoi T-10M-3 for navalisation, but not the Su-33. It's avionics, engines, weapons systems, etc are much more modern and the weapons systems it's designed to carry are lighter and much more capable that those of 25ish years ago. Yeah, it certainly won't be lifting off with loads like the F-4 did during Vietnam, but it's not expected to just yet. And as for the refueling situation, it's common practice in many navies to 'tank up' after take off. The PLAN and Russian navy aircraft might need it more than the USN, but the practice and it's operational benefits are enough to make that a moot point. I find finding accurate details, or up to date ones at least, difficult to find outside of individual magazine articles. Jane's always has it's finger on the pulse, but often, much of it is hidden behind a pay wall if you're not willing to cough up the 2K(ish) yearly subscription fee. Key publishing had an okay site, but it was far too much like wiki (even porting articles directly from there but adding more technical info at one point) fo it's 1200 pound yearly subscription. Two sites that offer great strategic analysis are (and these are just Oz ones since I'm not too sure about other Western organisations) The Lowy Institute http://www.lowyinstitute.org/ and ASPI http://www.aspi.org.au/default.aspx Both are independent think tanks and both are amazing at what they do. There are some great papers on each of those sites. Definitely worth having a read through. Avoid sites like these: http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/directories/ http://www.ausairpower.net/ As the information lacks detail or is often compromised...

...or the Spanish navy, of the Italian navy, or the Thai navy, or the Brazilian navy, or the Indian navy, or the Russian navy, or the French navy or any navy that has to put aircraft of any kind onto something flat that's being blown around by wind or kicked around by waves. Bang on the money! This needed saying as a lot of people here seem to greatly underestimate China's abilities, be it military, economic or otherwise. If you want to underestimate them due some left over cold war attitude, go for it, but do so at your own peril. That was last century after all. Don't forget, this isn't the only experience they've had with aircraft carriers. For the past... roughly 26 years, they've had the HMAS Melbourne to dissect, practice with and learn from, rather than breaking it up as they were paid to do so in '85. They've built land based carrier runways to gain an understanding of what's required to stop tonnes of aircraft in short distances. Remember, many in the US were saying they couldn't field decent 4th generation aircraft not too long ago. And they have. Then it was about how they couldn't built stealth aircraft. That's changed too. They'll get there with naval aviation and they'll overcome problems with training and/or technology like many other nations have. There's nothing so inherently superior about the USN that means only they alone can do this, just as there nothing so inherently inferior about the PLAN that's going to preclude them from achieving these abilities. I mean, the RN hasn't had a CATOBAR carrier for 30+ years, but I don't see anyone doubting their ability to relearn it, despite the loss of their skills base.

Ace of Duty... perfect description of the most recent titles, especially the ones set in the real world (rather than Strangereal)!

Somebody give this man a cigar! YES!! I can't play this series any more because of the godawful voice acting distracts me to much from the rest of the game. If they could make this version not suck, I'd look into it, but that's like trying to separate the douche from the Call of Duty series. IMPOSSIBLE!! On a side note, did anyone notice how bad the terrains were in Assault Horizon? The environments in Ace Combat 4 were vastly superior to what was on display in AH. Seems like all the attention was focused on the aircraft skins, the terrible, nay, woeful acting and CODifying it as much as humanly possible to appeal to the tween set. How magazines and gaming sites like IGN gave this a 9/10 speaks volumes! I call payola! ...but I'm with Roger, I'll take them all for PC up to and including the Belkan War, but none of the crap that was released after that.

Spinners, on behalf of just about every single one of our 20000+ members, we need to have a talk about this situation of how you tease us with these beautiful skins and then don't release them...

Easy, Growler. Sweet video!

I noticed that too, which is why I did the same, otherwise you just see aircraft getting into great positions for guns, but nothing happens... :S

I was able to mod the APKWS guided rocket pods to fire rocket sized IRMs at an airborne target. The problem I face was that the rocket's small warhead did bugger all damage to the target. I could fire off a salvo of 5-10 and would barely see any damage register, if at all. It should have shredded it. I abandoned it shortly after. You want me to post the weapons entry coding? You might be able to do something with it.

Was enjoying this when I played it. Then one of the patches screwed up during the region swap events and I miss the window during the re-install. Now it won't accept my login despite the password reset working perfectly... Bah, gave me the galloping sh*ts! Why can't I just change my region at will? I mean, what happens if someone moves overseas? Dumb move. Really enjoyed the game when I played it though. It was getting a bit too "pay to win" for a while there and I'm glad to see they curbed the strength of the Arty, but all in all, it's a pretty fun romp. I'm reluctant to start from scratch again, but... I dunno. Kinda interested to see the Pommy tanks! Miss my Soviet light tanks.

Much appreciated guys! I've seen them floating around, but I've never pinned down where they came from or which series they work with. I don't mind if it's gen 1 since I'm currently rebuilding my Wings Over Timor mod. Gonna have a play with the CFTs now. Thanks again!

Has anyone been able to successfully apply the CFTs to the XL?

Sweet, cheers Brain. I might give it a look in... though I'd rather be playing Day Z...