SDirickson

As much as I want LO-MAC to be as good as Il-2 is, I think the important part is just being thankful that developers are still creating flight sims, period. I mean, the hobby certainly isn't on too much of an upswing. But, like I said, can't wait for LO-MAC, or Forgotten Battles while I'm at it.

All I can say is, if thats a drone about to be blasted by a missile, I'd hate to be the two guys strapped in up front :shock:

Jeez. June? Thats insane. This thing had better live up to the expectation.

Hahaha, sweet. Definately check out x-plane.org All the best mods and stuff.

Dude, I certainly don't have it. I've been working to get one the legal route though... tryin to get into the AF and Naval Academies.

Damn man, if only I could buy a Harrier for $800,000.

Well, I am sure you can find the 5.66 final version update and the 5.99 expansion pack. Its still a great sim, and definately a great way to see if you want to buy the 6.xx version. I mean, 5.xx was good enough for me to grab on to X-Plane in the beginning.

Uh Oh. Fast Eagle, did you get the 5.xx version? You may be a tad disappointed. The current versions and updates are running through the 6.xx's.

Hahaha, this sim? LO-MAC? As much as I agree with you, are you sure you're not talking about SF? Seems like an A-6 would better choice there. Of course, I'd love to see an A-6 just about anywhere. OK, yeah, the F-14 does have a limited A2G role. But it is definately not my first choice when it comes to performing any type of strike or CAS mission. I mean, its like a scaled down F-111. I wanna see the Harrier because: A. VTOL B. Hasn't been done realistically in a sim before. C. Not too fancy that you need a manual ala Falcon 4.0 to run. D. Dogfighting takes on an entirely different aspect than in purely non-vectoring aircraft. E. A single mission in the Harrier can combine mulitiple sorties, mulitiple refuel and rearmings. Imagine, starting from a carrier, performing another sortie from a forward landing strip, and then ultimately landing on a reinforced highway, and taxing between trees to a hidden turn-around. F. Much as I have little desire o join the Marine Corps, they deserve a sim at long last.

What? The majority of you go for the Tomcat? I mean, yeah, I like the plane too, but I'd get bored of knocking off targets 120 miles away. I'm sorry, its A2G for me.

Oh, Chief, I'll definately agree with you that bugs are not something worthy of killing a sim. Look at Falcon 4.0 for proof of that. X-Plane is another great example.

Well, I know you guys know that I support SF all the way. But... I think SF is missing something crucial, something that no amount of patches or user mods can add. The best way I can describe it, is its just, it just is, well, boring I guess. Its the campaign. If you've played Falcon 4.0, Longbow 2 or EECH you know what I am talking about. I just can't really get into any sims anymore that don't have a dynamic campaign. I don't know, I just love that feeling of frantic action going around. The world of SF seems so flat, boring, empty. Nothing there, no simple transport flights, no major ground offensives, no enemy attack aircraft going about their own little missions. I can play single missions in SF for a bit, and the dogfighting is pretty good, but I can't stick with it because there is nothing that drags me back. The campaign system is what does it for me. I love being in a war, just being a minor part, yet still being able to interact in everything. Just thinking of it all is gonna make me re-install F4 and Longbow 2 this weekend. I mean, maybe I haven't played it enough, or maybe because the comms aren't working right, or because I don't have a good radar, and can see everything, but I feel that SF is seriously lacking in atmosphere. I don't mind if you disagree, and hell, I hope I hope I hope that it gets addressed. But right now, I don't even have to begin to worry about situational awareness in SF. I'd like you guys to agree with me, but I am probably wishing for way too much. Maybe the new user campaigns will fix everything, and lordy I hope so.

I would say that they consider the read speeds of CD-RW drives to be insufficient, I guess. I know those are only the minimums, its just that I have seen many games advertise extremely low min specs, while the recommended system performs at what you would expect of the min. I am just saying I want honest numbers, so that if my system manages to surpass the recommended, I can expect smooth gameplay and great graphics.

I just hope they are accurate. I hate having a system that equals or surpasses the recommended specs, yet not being able to run the game at full graphics.

Haha, nothing will hold me over till they're done, but it helps.

Panthers are cool too. What I can't wiat to see is the Grumman Tiger featured over at the Skunkworks. Definately not a well known aircraft, it looks like a blast to fly.

I actually have that model. Of course, it doesn't look as good as those pics. Hard to do without a proper airbrush. Can't wait to fly the thing. I've always liked attack aircraft.

Hahahahaha

I can do it, but it always ends with the F-16 being downed by a lucky snap-shot.

Gotcha. I do that frequently, but I guess not enough.

Where'd you get this shot? I thought I'd seen all the FB screenies.

Flanker 2.5 deserves mention as having the hardest dogfighting of any sim I've played. Its is damn impossible to take an F-16 in a guns only dogfight, and an F-15 is almost as hard.

That reminds me, how effective are the M-20s? Do you still have to hit the tank dead on?

Oh, thing about LB3. HELO SIMS NEED REALISTIC TREES!!! All that stupid surface clutter? Yeah, its necassary. I don't think EECH cuts it, in this respect. To me, a helo sim needs to have lots of 'stuff'. Trees, minor buildings, rocks, just stuff. All those things a helo can hide behind, basically. I think we finally have the PC horsepower needed, too.

Man, LB3? I would cream myself (pardon the expression). Seriously though, I think the major problem has just been the lack of developers interested in simulations. A sim is definately not an easy thing to code, especially if you want to make something worthy of sim-nards like us. I think Ubi-Soft might be breaking the mold in that respect, and hopefully it can take the place (heaven forbid, surpass) of Jane's. What I've always wanted to see is a developer come out with an excellent core simulation, and then have smaller companies provide the aircraft. What have Oleg and the LO-MAC team always said when somebody asked for another plane? "It takes a lot of effort to accurately code the flight model, systems, 3D-model, and cockpits of an aircraft." Think about it, one sim, but lots of companies providing top notch aircraft for it. Eh, its my personnal dream. I'd be perfectly happy to see them keep an engine like Il-2's or Flanker 2.5's around, and just pump all the effort into new campaigns, new high quality aircraft, etc...