Tirak

That came up pretty easily, and I've read numerous articles about fire fighting aircraft being unable to do their job because of drones in the area where they need to operate. There are quite a few drones on the market that are fairly sturdy, the hobby has evolved to the point where it's relativly easy to get your hands on even fairly substantial ones that can take a gust, and can achieve fairly high altitudes. Rather than constantly having to change the requirements every year to handle the next flying tech toy, the FAA went with the carpet bomb solution. Does it suck for enthusiasts in the hobby, yeah, but this isn't a case of mindless government oversight, there are legitimate concerns. I think we can all agree that we wish there was a different solution, but you can't say this one was groundless.

Just to put this point out there, hobbyist drones have become something of a nuisance around airports, endangering passenger aircraft.

I Know, who would do something like that

Wags said Steam doesn't get pre orders. Important thing to note about the prepurchase though, it will not have the PFM at time of the beta release, it will have a placeholder AFM, in the same vein as the VEAO Hawk and C-101 >_<

The Japanese upper echelon of government was fast becoming fractured over the course of the war. Deprived of fuel, food and other essential war materials, it had quickly become apparent that Japan could do nothing. They could not mount offensive warfare anymore, they quite literally lacked the fuel to do so. By this point in the war, Japan wasn't looking for anything other than some way of going to the negotiating table to argue for anything other than complete surrender. This is what Okinawa was, a final last stand in the hopes that they could repel an allied assault for long enough that the allies would be willing to negotiate a settlement without forcing total capitulation, and thus was fought in a way to attempt to force the Allies to pause. When Okinawa fell, it was absolutely crystallized that nothing more could be done, but still a majority of the high command seemed to be in favor of continuing the war. However, despite what your grandfathers may have told you, the Japanese were not mindless robots. While your average citizen had been indoctrinated since a very young age, the people who made it to the top of the military structure were ambitious and intelligent individuals. Often western educated, these men had run out of options. So, identifying the more stringent members of the government, a portion of the Japanese government began to put into motion a plan to force the government to accept peace terms, while outwardly still professing support for the war. An even basic understanding of Japanese politics in the run up to the war will make it plain to see why public and private actions were so significantly different. When even the Prime Minister could be easily assassinated by the military if it so desired, these men needed to work in secret until the time was right. A continued blockade would make the conditions perfect for them to act, to overturn the military control and get the Emperor to declare that Japan would surrender. The pact with the Soviet Union was announced that it would be annulled was made on April 5, 1945, well before the dropping of both bombs. What was needed was time, blockade and patience, and because of our stranglehold by this point, America had the time. It is important to also take note, that one of the largest stumbling blocks in the peace process, was the status of the Japanese Emperor. In negotiation attempts prior to use of the Atom Bomb, the Allies insisted on his removal, yet after the bomb was dropped, that condition was dropped, and all mention of the Emperor was removed from the surrender. As to those saying "The Japanese were worse," to this I can only respond that America seeks to be better than our enemies. We do not, and cannot compare ourselves to the atrocities of others, but rather hold ourselves to our higher standard. Saying that our atrocities aren't as bad, does not resolve them of being atrocities. And to White Knight, the reason why the atomic bomb is worse, is not because of who it kills directly, but the side effects. Bombing a city does not make it uninhabitable. Shooting an enemy does not make their descendants die of birth defects. I am not saying the Atomic Bomb is an atrocity for how many it killed, but by the fact that the Atomic weapon, corrupts human DNA, and murders the future of a family. While war is an immediate thing which we seek to end in the fastest way possible, western culture has rejected the concepts of the past of salting the earth. We do not kill the future of a people, when fighting is done, we aid them and bring them back to par with the rest of the world, as we did with both Germany and Japan after the war, but no amount of economic aid can repair chromosomes. The Atomic Bomb is the ultimate regression, as it seeks not just to kill the living, but the next generation as well.

Not bullshit at all. I've studied this issue and discussed it with Japanese historians. I've lived in the country during a year abroad during University and been to those sites. My major has focused on the history and politics of Japan and its relationship with the US. Japan had already been defeated, it was simply a matter of time until the exact outcome the Allies wanted came about. A concentrated bombing campaign, in conjunction with the already in place blockade would have ended the war without direct invasion being necessary. The anecdotes of GIs and members of family may be easily accepted, they were not in a position to actually judge what was going on in the upper echelon of a Japanese government that was becoming erratic, unreliable and starting to fray. World War 2 wasn't ended by the bomb, it was ended by superiority of the US Navy and the blockade on the home islands. With the capture of Okinawa allowing US bombers to range the islands, and the announcement of the Soviet Union that it would be ending its neutrality, all hope was crushed. It's not politically correct rewritten history, if anything, the necessity of the bombs to defeat a country that had run out of fuel and resources such that it couldn't fight back even if it wanted to, is the rewritten for palatable consumption version. The Atomic bomb was a threat to the USSR, written on the back of Japan.

Nuclear warfare is immoral, use of nuclear weapons is immoral, the question is are you willing to accept that immorality to achieve your goals. Japan very likely would have been forced to surrender without either a ground invasion or a nuclear strike. The US had been bombing conventionally, and due to Japanese construction techniques, was extremely vulnerable to fire bombing attacks, as was demonstrated prior to the use of the bomb. Japan simply would have been unable to continue the war. And while the common mythos is that the Japanese were mindless in their devotion and as a whole were willing to commit collective suicide to avoid defeat, this is simply not the case. Opinion was divided, and without too much push, would have gone towards surrender, as was being discussed at the highest level. The unconditional surrender could have been achieved without unleashing the atomic bomb, and the murder of a quarter of a million men, women and children, not even counting children not yet even born. The use of the Nuclear weapons on Japan was not to induce Japan to surrender, but to warn the Soviets not to get greedy, to that end, we committed an atrocity to demonstrate to the world that you do not mess with the US, but that doesn't make it moral.

A nuclear bomb leaves devastating radiation that kills thousands. The fallout can travel for hundreds of miles poisoning and killing those no where near the site of the man blast. It causes birth defects in the next generation thanks to the same poisoning affects, so even if you don't die, your children might. That's what makes a nuclear bomb immoral. It's not just burning the city, it's salting the earth, and casting fallout across hundreds of miles requiring massive cleanup operations that endanger the lives of those doing the cleanup and murdering your future.

DCS World, and that's free. Comes with an SU-25T which is a non clickable cockpit ground attack aircraft, and the unarmed trainer version of the P-51. EDIT: Ninja'd

I really don't sympathize with VEAO. They released a sub par product at full price, haven't even finished it, and are releasing the P-40F before they get around to finishing it (When they announced the P-40F Presale someone specifically asked about the Hawk's flight model being finished before the P-40 being released and VEAO flat out stated that it would not). Their sounds are subpar, their cockpit texture work is poor and their flight model is incomplete. I don't say this as someone just making baseless assertions, i say this by being able to compare them to Leatherneck. Compared to the MiG-21Bis, the Hawk is practically a modding team's effort at a module, and if VEAO were just a modding team that would be fine, but they're not, they're a business. Yet they don't seem to realize that. This may be part time to them but they're selling a product, and if they want to sell at full price, they're going to have to step it up. They're not operating in a vacuum anymore. It's down to brass tacks because what they've released and what others have released on the same time frame and for the same price don't match up. They're going to get backlash for it, especially from people who bought the Hawk module last year with the implication the full flight model would be completed soon, and here we are a year later and still nothing to show for it. Now I don't mean to say that them clamming up like this is a horrible thing. But I'm getting sick of watching the VEAO team and the vocal fans of the company trying to scream that they were driven to this by an unreasonable community. Sorry if I'm out of line with this post, I normally go way out of my way to be polite, especially to developers, but this issue's gotten under my skin a bit, so I may be a little unreasonable ranting about it.

Looks like a classic case of the plane's software not being finished. He couldn't make full use of the aircraft in a combat situation because half the time he was fighting the plane. You can't reliably come up with tactics if you're not sure what the plane is going to do because the software isn't finished.

I used the word i intended mate, it has more meaning than just cheerful readiness. Alacrity indicates a level of skill and energy to an action, a gusto to indicate ease of execution when used in this way. But by all means, feel free to educate me on language using dictionary.com Test reports from RNoAF pilots say otherwise, noting a signifigant energy advantage over the F-16, furthermore testing completed around the same time was able to push the aircraft to 110 degrees angle of attack, and the article expects me to believe the plane is sluggish?

And yet the F-35 performed with alacrity during Green Flag, having the distinction of being the only aircraft not shot down during the exercise, costs have plummeted and orders from many different countries are on the rise. The doomsayers are falling silent or becoming desperate, this article's source is suspect at best.

Source is unnamed, report is not provided, and the information in it contradicts other facts that we know. I'd take it with a mighty big grain of salt if I were you.

I think it's probably just a misunderstanding combined with the fact that ED is really gunshy with it's relationship with Boeing. Depending on how their contract/licensing deal with Boeing is set up, it could be that any hint of impropriety, real or imagined, could lead to Boeing cutting ties, which would sink their F-18C project, which would seriously hurt their bottom line. A Super Hornet module gets really close to stepping on a lot of toes. Without some really serious mollycoddling I can see ED going for the nuclear option in a hurry just because an FC3 level mod coming from someone they've never worked with isn't worth nearly as much to them as protecting their interests with the US military and Boeing. Things probably just went too fast and too bluntly for them. I don't know what went on behind the scenes of what I could see in the forums, but I'd wager that if things went slower, and ED was treated with kids gloves so as to not scare them about their other contracts, things would go better. But then again, I know fuck all given my position as an outside observer on all of this, so my opinion probably isn't worth spit

Isn't it still the simplified flight model?

The F-35 never got past kickstarter. RAZBAM's Mirage is progressing rather nicely, they had a brief hiatus to deal with a death in the family, but are back to working on it. Right now only VEAO's Eurofighter, RAZBAM's Mirage and Leatherneck's F-14A/B are 4th generation fighters and in production. VEAO hasn't even released a full flight model for its Hawk, and now says they're scrapping another Typhoon model, so yeah, this gets released in 2015 only in their dreams, though I feel fairly confident about its release eventually because it's a contract with the RAF. RAZBAM's Mirage looks pretty good, 2015 release seems possible, but they haven't shown off much about the radar systems, so could be a few more months. Leatherneck is the only DCS group that isn't Belsimtek to release an actual fighter, and their MiG-21Bis is the most advanced DCS level fighter currently on offer, so I feel pretty confident they'll come through on their Tomcats, though I don' think this year is likely, and to their credit, they haven't given an ETA on it, just that one of their 3 modules will drop this year.

That's kind of the point I'm making, the AI doesn't use the same damage states as the player flown aircraft, hell they don't even use the same flight models as player controlled aircraft. I agree, it's frustratingly annoying to watch helicopters take bursts from 20mm and 30mm cannons as well as Aim-9 shots, I was just mentioning some of what goes on under the hood when an AI aircraft takes damage, not defending it. :)

Aircraft damage states are not modeled on AI controlled modules until a component is totally destroyed. Whereas if you were shot you'd suffer all kinds of systems failures and degraded performance, the AI simply is unaffected by them. A lot of people got this unkindly taught to them when DCS: F-86 came out, because you couldn't degrade the performance of the MiG-15 with the Saber's .50cals, and the machine guns simply weren't able to pack enough punch to blast off a whole wing without putting in a lot of rounds. That and a few other things like the rate of fire on the M3s, but that's not so important. Human controlled modules suffer damage in a far more realistic way, so if you're looking for a good DCS fix, the best fights are had against other human aircraft. Just curious though, what is ED over promising?

Comments say that one bailed out and parachuted to the ground and the other managed to land his aircraft safely.

Mate, do me the favor of actually reading what I wrote, instead of just the first line of each post and making an assumption about what the rest of it said mkay?

Lots of people give the Tiger scene flak, but for the wrong reason. 1. Tiger should have just stayed there and murdered all the shermans Well in the movie they pop off smoke rounds to blind the Tiger, then move in on its position. Staying there would have been suicide. Maybe back up, but staying still falls under the category of a Bad Idea. 2. Sherman stands no chance against Tiger. Actually in this case, it's untrue. The Shermans on display here are upgunned with a 76mm high velocity gun (Not Firefly's, which is the other thing a lot of people like to say), minus the one which is still sporting its original dual purpose cannon. While original American reports indicated it would be insufficient against heavy German tanks, later testing revealed that with certain ammo types, this was not the case. In this battle, the error isn't that the Sherman stands no chance, it's that at the range being fought at, the Sherman would have been able to hole the Tiger I from the front, let alone the rear. And with 3 to one odds to boot, this is a dead Tiger we're looking at. 3. Fury takes a side hit and doesn't pop off immediately. Those wooden logs would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Tiger's shell. The angle of the hit on the side of Fury was quite oblique, making chance of a ricochet reasonable. The wooden logs didn't do a thing except fall off. All in all, the Tiger scene is pretty good, but it wouldn't have been as cool to have 3 Sherman's in the final fight after handily dealing with a Tiger. Lots of people seem to forget that while the Sherman was never a fantastic tank, it was nearly always a Good Tank. While I agree the scene with the Pak site seems a bit far fetched, the accurate fire by the Sherman's on the move is not, as the main gun had a vertical stabilizer, specifically so it could fire on the move. The final battle though is pretty much all Hollywood. It's a decent war movie, I wasn't a fan of some of the more "traumatic" scenes, but over all as far as war movies go, it's not bad.

Going out on a limb, The Adventures of Bill and John?

I know the logic of the trainer's was so that the 3rd Party Developers could get used to working on DCS so when they did the more complicated stuff it'd be easier, but frankly I look at the MiG-21 module by Leatherneck and have to wonder why they didn't just do the cheap multiroles like Leatherneck. I mean the Hawk is nice, but I can't imagine the Hawk is much easier than something like the F-5. There's a huge range of Cold War era jets that don't have super complicated systems that should, in my humble non codeing/modling/anything capable opinion, have been pretty much as easy as all these bloody trainers. The Crusader and Super Saber seem to me like they'd have been perfect "let's learn how to DCS" planes. I know liscensing agreements have scuttled some projects but really, there are a lot of planes to choose from from a lot of different manufacturers in that era, surely one of them would have reasonable liscensing agreements. The F-16 however i don't think is going to get done for a long long time. No 3rd Party Dev or even ED wants to take that on knowing they'll be compared at every turn to BMS.