PDA

View Full Version : would you want a oleg Vietnam aircombat sim?



stalkervision
10-07-2008, 08:46 AM
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

general_kalle
10-07-2008, 09:16 AM
of course...i mean, why would you say no?
however i'd really like to him focus all his reccources on getting BOB out as quick as possible

HayateAce
10-07-2008, 09:16 AM
Everything russian would be über.

P.FunkAdelic
10-07-2008, 09:25 AM
Oh wouldn't that be fun. A whole new set of realism arguments!

"My missiles don't lose lock often enough!"

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 09:47 AM
Just not on IL2 engine! It lacks compression modeling.

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Everything russian would be über.

If you want to believe that Russian jets were correct in the original Jetfighter perhaps,
ie paper targets.

HayateAce
10-07-2008, 10:26 AM
Russian jet made from a paper?

Close this book forever.

ElAurens
10-07-2008, 10:32 AM
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

arthursmedley
10-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

+1

Mr_Zooly
10-07-2008, 10:47 AM
+2

HayateAce
10-07-2008, 10:51 AM
+3

VF-17_Jolly
10-07-2008, 10:56 AM
+4 No Bloody missiles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

gorkyporky
10-07-2008, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by arthursmedley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

+1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+100
I really dont like fighting with missiles, its so impersonal. Just lock on and fire, the missile takes care of the rest. Even when i was still flying LOMAC i usualy just went for guns-only battles.

jolly_magpie
10-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Wasn't there a heli sim that used the IL2 engine a while back?

Deedsundone
10-07-2008, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by jolly_magpie:
Wasn't there a heli sim that used the IL2 engine a while back?

Whirlwind over Vietnam.Dunno if they used that engine but I had such high hopes for that one but it turned out to be...shall we say,not so good.Although I have not try it myself but from the reviews and forum posts,it didn´t look promising

To topic,hell yeah I would want a Vietnam era sim.Flight of intruder on my old Atari 1040 STE was a blast! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Swivet
10-07-2008, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

Even lock-on was kind of a dissapointment, compared to IL2...Just my 2cents.


+5

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by gorkyporky:
I really dont like fighting with missiles, its so impersonal. Just lock on and fire, the missile takes care of the rest. Even when i was still flying LOMAC i usualy just went for guns-only battles.

Missile hit rate wasn't very high in Vietnam Era nor even in the 80's.
Turns out that the Russians have been making the better AtA missiles at least up to the 90's.

Go figure, look at the surprise the MiG-29 turned out to be compared to the talk in the west
for how many years prior to 1989? And still we get the flags for blindfolds crowd with their
"we should, they should" brand of fact inventing.

Anybody else remember per-1990 jet "sims"? Original Jetfighter would please our #1 Troll,
you blink at the Russian jet at 3 seconds later it blows apart every time. The Ace ones
get one shot at you which one tap of chaff, a flare and a jink takes care of easily.

stalkervision
10-07-2008, 02:11 PM
Missile hit rate wasn't very high in Vietnam Era nor even in the 80's

Your exactly right buddy. A good hard turn 95% of the time would foil aa missles attacks. Sams could be dodged pretty easily too If you saw them in time.

Bremspropeller
10-07-2008, 02:14 PM
I really dont like fighting with missiles, its so impersonal. Just lock on and fire, the missile takes care of the rest

That's BS.

I understand why you get the feeling, though.

LOMAC got it all wrong. The missiles are wa too reliable.

Especially during the Vietnam-time, scoring a missile-kill was quite a lot of work - much more than, say, a gun-kill.

Mr_Zooly
10-07-2008, 02:43 PM
iirc the sidewinder was in its infancy and therefore not really reliable during the war in Vietnam, the sparrow was the missile that achieved a higher success rate due to the manual tracking system.

crucislancer
10-07-2008, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

Even lock-on was kind of a dissapointment, compared to IL2...Just my 2cents.


+5 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I picked up LOMAC as part of a bundle that also had the original IL-2 and Pacific Fighters. LOMAC rarely gets played.

Don't get me wrong, I like LOMAC, mainly for the Su-27, but I prefer WWII air combat.

As far as a Vietnam sim, I think I would try it at the very least if Oleg made one, though I would much prefer more WWII and Korea over that.

McHilt
10-07-2008, 03:22 PM
I would like to see Oleg make a Uh-1 Huey... once http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The sound only of that thing makes me go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

VF-17_Jolly
10-07-2008, 03:37 PM
Huey Takeoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQPPMcUZSEU)

Sweet sound http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CH-46 very similar Huey in stereo

GatorSub1942
10-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Not especially, I just want SoW!!!!!

Phil_C
10-07-2008, 10:44 PM
Korea and Vietnam are the 2 most overlooked ares of combat sims out there, in terms of flight sims.

I have WoV, picked up Saber Ace when it was new.. but other than those and a few others.. the list of titles is not nearly as long as it is for WWII.

ID love a new Korea and Vietnam sim... its something about the early first and second generation jets and those horrible first generation "missles" that make it just that much more challenging.

Von_Rat
10-08-2008, 12:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HayateAce:
Russian jet made from a paper?

[QUOTE]

delta paper be sure

P.FunkAdelic
10-08-2008, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by McHilt:
I would like to see Oleg make a Uh-1 Huey... once http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The sound only of that thing makes me go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Just remember that the sound in IL-2 is probably the biggest let down of the whole operation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GregGal
10-08-2008, 01:54 AM
1: Missiles ruined the magic of air combat

2: Based on my experience in il2, I don't wanna fly american against russian aircraft in a game designed by russians.

3: They should concentrate on SOW:BOB.

tagTaken2
10-08-2008, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.

-1

I'd be interested in Vietnam. WoV is fun, but can't compare to Maddox stuff.

Erkki_M
10-08-2008, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by GregGal:

2: Based on my experience in il2, I don't wanna fly american against russian aircraft in a game designed by russians.

Based on my experience in AH2, Warbirds, WW2OL and practically almost every flight "sim", or MMOLG game with flying parts, so far I don't want to fly Soviet aircraft against US aircraft in a game designed by Americans.

Bremspropeller
10-08-2008, 05:13 AM
1: Missiles ruined the magic of air combat

Speaking of magic - what exactly do you mean? Gunning each other to death?
Or is it vomiting all over the cockpit in fear and being paralyzed, half-blinded by coldness and lack of oxygen?
Maybe it's sleeping in tents, suffering diverse diseases, dealing with all kinds of bugs that try to eat you alive at night and all kinds of enemies trying to kill you at daytime?

There is no MAGIC in any kind of combat. It's just dying or not dying.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1: Missiles ruined the magic of air combat

Speaking of magic - what exactly do you mean? Gunning each other to death?
Or is it vomiting all over the cockpit in fear and being paralyzed, half-blinded by coldness and lack of oxygen?
Maybe it's sleeping in tents, suffering diverse diseases, dealing with all kinds of bugs that try to eat you alive at night and all kinds of enemies trying to kill you at daytime?

There is no MAGIC in any kind of combat. It's just dying or not dying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also figure it this way. Missiles tend to blow the aircraft completely up with the pilot or disable it and then the pilot ejects with his edjection seat that ww 2 sircraft didn't have.

il-2 pilots always seem to manage to parachute out of their planes even when they are shot to hell from end to end which is really unrealistic historically.

ElAurens
10-08-2008, 05:34 AM
Brems, I think he is talking about virtual air combat, you know, the fun stuff we do.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't think that anyone really confuses our virtual playground for the real thing, do you?

Bremspropeller
10-08-2008, 05:48 AM
I don't think that anyone really confuses our virtual playground for the real thing, do you?

I'm not sure if I would agree on that, El.

Seems like some people (no pun intended, Greg) really seem to forget there is a "real" world with "real" bullets and NO "refly" button sometimes.

GregGal
10-08-2008, 06:51 AM
I'm talking about the reason why you play these games. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or why I play..I know there's a real life with no refly button, but still I think there is magic. That's why people build model airlanes, play simulators, read books about pilots, produce films like Top Gun, etc...

Erkki: You're right, I don't want that either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tom19073
10-08-2008, 07:03 AM
The Vietnamese plane's would be over modeled and the American plane's would be under modeled. Just kidding.

Blood_Splat
10-08-2008, 07:29 AM
Flying B-52s would be cool.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Flying B-52s would be cool.

agreed. I would love to fly a B-52 or even be an electronic warfare operator in one sitting at a ew screen and jammimg sams.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Phil_C
10-08-2008, 07:48 AM
id love to fly an intruder, phantom, skyraider or even skyhawk off a carrier over the gulf, passing those massive rock formations on the coast to go and pound some dirt...

idk if anyone remembers, but way back when, EA/Janes had USNF'97 which included a vietnam campaign... it was fairly well done (and i still play it from time to time) but iirc it was one of the first that really gave you a shot at flying those missions.. WOV has been the only other since then that even came close.

Jex_TE
10-08-2008, 08:07 AM
Anyone remember Flight of the Intruder? I had it for my Amiga 500 and it came with the book too which was great.

Saburo_0
10-08-2008, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Korea will be as "new" as I care to go.

Too many bloody buttons and avionics nonsense on the later aircraft.
+6

Phil_C
10-08-2008, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Jex_TE:
Anyone remember Flight of the Intruder? I had it for my Amiga 500 and it came with the book too which was great.

Thats one of my all time favorite books and movies. Not to mention airplanes :lol:

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 09:07 AM
No, i wouldnt...I would like to see an oleg's new sim based on the European air war 1943-1945 with the long range bombing runs and all, and all with a new graphics engine...that would rock.

Modern flight sims is like this: lock on the target, squeeze trigger and the missile do the rest, no dogfighting, no sneaking attacks, no nothing...not for me.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
No, i wouldnt...I would like to see an oleg's new sim based on the European air war 1943-1945 with the long range bombing runs and all, and all with a new graphics engine...that would rock.

Modern flight sims is like this: lock on the target, squeeze trigger and the missile do the rest, no dogfighting, no sneaking attacks, no nothing...not for me.

If that was true for Vietnam then they wouldn't have had to put a gunpod on the Phantom.

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
No, i wouldnt...I would like to see an oleg's new sim based on the European air war 1943-1945 with the long range bombing runs and all, and all with a new graphics engine...that would rock.

Modern flight sims is like this: lock on the target, squeeze trigger and the missile do the rest, no dogfighting, no sneaking attacks, no nothing...not for me.

If that was true for Vietnam then they wouldn't have had to put a gunpod on the Phantom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, i just said that not only directed to vietnam, but in a general extent of modern air war.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 09:37 AM
Are they up to 20% yet? I note that every US fighter SINCE the Phantom has cannon and that
Top Gun type schooling has not ended.

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Are they up to 20% yet? I note that every US fighter SINCE the Phantom has cannon and that
Top Gun type schooling has not ended.

Cannon today is more a sort of accessory than a real need , if you dare to come close enough a F22 for example to "dogfight" without being crushed miles before by a missile, than i wish you luck.

ElAurens
10-08-2008, 10:44 AM
I'd reconsider if I could fly an A1D "Spad" and fly cover for Jolly Greens.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Are they up to 20% yet? I note that every US fighter SINCE the Phantom has cannon and that
Top Gun type schooling has not ended.

Cannon today is more a sort of accessory than a real need , if you dare to come close enough a F22 for example to "dogfight" without being crushed miles before by a missile, than i wish you luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

**I** would be like a Libyan facing USAF F-16's and that would be the result.
ADD:
Hmmm, what's this for? -sound of gear lowering under the missile warning beeps-
Oh damn!

A highly trained Russian or the like (who else, I dunno) in a new model Sukhoi or like would
not be such an easy prey however. Perhaps we can posit a French or other pilot in a Eurofighter?

Really, who are the F-22's supposed to counter? What do North Koreans fly? Iranians AFAIK
are not on the major league level... perhaps Chinese if they have a truly modern fighter?

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Are they up to 20% yet? I note that every US fighter SINCE the Phantom has cannon and that
Top Gun type schooling has not ended.

Cannon today is more a sort of accessory than a real need , if you dare to come close enough a F22 for example to "dogfight" without being crushed miles before by a missile, than i wish you luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

**I** would be like a Libyan facing USAF F-16's and that would be the result.
ADD:
Hmmm, what's this for? -sound of gear lowering under the missile warning beeps-
Oh damn!

A highly trained Russian or the like (who else, I dunno) in a new model Sukhoi or like would
not be such an easy prey however. Perhaps we can posit a French or other pilot in a Eurofighter?

Really, who are the F-22's supposed to counter? What do North Koreans fly? Iranians AFAIK
are not on the major league level... perhaps Chinese if they have a truly modern fighter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not talking about the better fighter, we are talking about if it is possible to dogfight today like it was in ww2, my answer is no, anyway ok, lets put a F22 against the best russian fighter that is, one of the 2 will be destroyed with sure, but not dogfighting.

did you understand now?

Chivas
10-08-2008, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe after Luthier completes the Korean War addon to SOW series, he may consider doing a Vietnam era combat sim.

Personally I have little interest in Jets with complex targeting, armament systems.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe after Luthier completes the Korean War addon to SOW series, he may consider doing a Vietnam era combat sim.

Personally I have little interest in Jets with complex targeting, armament systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vietnam era jets aren't all that complex and I am sure oleg would have different difficulty settings for them all as in il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just a thought. wouldn't it be cool to have the option to use a second human back seater in the f4 as in real lfe for F4 multiplayer.

That's what I would call real "team tactics" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

People could specialize in being "REO's" and good back seat REOS could be requested by other players.

VF-17_Jolly
10-08-2008, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe after Luthier completes the Korean War addon to SOW series, he may consider doing a Vietnam era combat sim.

Personally I have little interest in Jets with complex targeting, armament systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vietnam era jets aren't all that complex and I am sure oleg would have different difficulty settings for them all as in il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just a thought. wouldn't it be cool to have the option to use a second human back seater in the f4 as in real lfe for F4 multiplayer.

That's what I would call real "team tactics" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

People could specialize in being "REO's" and good back seat REOS could be requested by other players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was RIO

I would (change of heart but still no missiles just a shed load of bombs) as long as there was an A6 and a good ai or real life B/N

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just wondering. I would. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe after Luthier completes the Korean War addon to SOW series, he may consider doing a Vietnam era combat sim.

Personally I have little interest in Jets with complex targeting, armament systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vietnam era jets aren't all that complex and I am sure oleg would have different difficulty settings for them all as in il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just a thought. wouldn't it be cool to have the option to use a second human back seater in the f4 as in real lfe for F4 multiplayer.

That's what I would call real "team tactics" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

People could specialize in being "REO's" and good back seat REOS could be requested by other players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was RIO

I would (change of heart but still no missiles just a shed load of bombs) as long as there was an A6 and a good ai or real life B/N </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

apparently we are both wrong. It's the WSO (Weapons Systems Operator) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.aviationheritagepark.com/fleenor.html

VF-17_Jolly
10-08-2008, 12:07 PM
Actually it`s GIB (Guy in Back) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I was under the impression that is RIO for the Navy

and WSO for the Air Force

I think REO was an old post war term

(just my thoughts)

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
Actually it`s GIB (Guy in Back) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I was under the impression that is RIO for the Navy

and WSO for the Air Force

I think REO was an old post war term

(just my thoughts)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ya thinking about it the navy and the airforce probably have different names for this position.

"G.I.B." is much better imo.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
We are not talking about the better fighter, we are talking about if it is possible to dogfight today like it was in ww2, my answer is no, anyway ok, lets put a F22 against the best russian fighter that is, one of the 2 will be destroyed with sure, but not dogfighting.

did you understand now?

I was also talking about pilots in planes. Missiles are not guaranteed kills against a good
well trained pilot is my point. The dogfighting has gotten different and from reading Shaw's
book for example, a good shot from rear aspect with a heat seeker does require some maneuver
for positioning, ie some kind of dogfight. Even with radar directed missiles, frontal aspect
especially vs stealthed AC (why I specify modern fighters) is an iffy proposition when the
enemy is much trained at all. It's not just push the button, fight over.

You could just as easily argue that dogfighting ended in 1918 since WWII dogfights were not
the same tight swirling messes that they got to be by end of WWI.

Top Gun (and is it Red Flag for USAF?) are the schools for modern dogfighting. Last I heard
they are still operating. The missiles are all we need crowd lost their point decades ago,
stealth has made missiles less less effective than before and please, what fighter designer
takes up space and weight for autocannon and ammo without need?

I call a battle for position between two fighters "a dogfight". Distances scale with speed
of the combatants. See the enemy, launch and it's over... with poorly trained enemies it did
work that way but beyond that, only in arcade type sims.

Erkki_M
10-08-2008, 12:36 PM
Same could be argued for WWI/II: most fights were(are) just getting into position(usually without the other guy noticing) and firing once. Weapons have improved since WW2, but so has pilots' situational awareness.

VF-17_Jolly
10-08-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Same could be argued for WWI/II: most fights were(are) just getting into position(usually without the other guy noticing) and firing once. Weapons have improved since WW2, but so has pilots' situational awareness.

Plus radar warning,flares chaff and ecm

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 01:04 PM
IMO both need to be fighting for position to be dogfighting of any kind.
Otherwise it's just a bounce, attack, ambush, whatever.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IMO both need to be fighting for position to be dogfighting of any kind.
Otherwise it's just a bounce, attack, ambush, whatever.

Very true.

Choctaw111
10-08-2008, 02:45 PM
Anything Oleg produces is top notch quality. No matter what he does, it would be good...even if it weren't a flight sim. What if 20 years from now Oleg decides to make another kind of game? I would follow his work wherever and whatever he does, as he is so passionate about what he does.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 02:46 PM
what I can't figure out is a lot of you guys who complain A Vietnam jet sim would be to difficut to learn worry about the minutia of every little realism setting and detail of Il-2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Anything Oleg produces is top notch quality. No matter what he does, it would be good...even if it weren't a flight sim. What if 20 years from now Oleg decides to make another kind of game? I would follow his work wherever and whatever he does, as he is so passionate about what he does.

agreed. I can't imagine it wouldn't be really good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
+4 No Bloody missiles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


..... I don't understand! Wouldn't it be exciting to shoot your missiles at microscopic 1 pixel specks on your pc screen, then watch the speck turn red after a while?

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 04:42 PM
F4 phantom drivers in Vietnam were required to be in visual range of a target to fire their missiles. This was instituted because of an earlier friendly fire incident.

Beirut
10-08-2008, 07:56 PM
I'd be happy to pay for a good F-105 sim.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
+4 No Bloody missiles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


..... I don't understand! Wouldn't it be exciting to shoot your missiles at microscopic 1 pixel specks on your pc screen, then watch the speck turn red after a while? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might as well play this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Strike_Eagle_(video_game))

Anyone else remember the original?

Chivas
10-08-2008, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
what I can't figure out is a lot of you guys who complain A Vietnam jet sim would be to difficut to learn worry about the minutia of every little realism setting and detail of Il-2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I know I said I'm not interested in complex weapons systems, but its not about it being too difficult. In relatively modern jets, you pick up the target on your radar, fly to lock on the target, and fire a missile or two and hope one works. I'd rather have to use my eyes to spot the target or use my head to avoid being spotted by the other pilot. Sneak up on my opponant blow him away before he knows I'm there. Or if you get jumped, outfly him to get a gun solution. I'm just not interested in Radar and Missiles.

stalkervision
10-08-2008, 10:33 PM
"In relatively modern jets, you pick up the target on your radar, fly to lock on the target, and fire a missile or two and hope one works."


That only applies before the merge. Even then the discription is way to simplistic. When Nato pilots from the eastern germany with their Mig 29's practice agains't american pilots and aircraft with their superior long distance american AMRAAM air-to-air missile the german pilots have all kinds of tricks they can use to get the americans within their own Russian missile range. Often both sides miss at this first merge and it becomes a classic dogfight again.

I could tell you about the defensive tactic refered to as "beaming" for one.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

"Approximately two years ago only Discovery Wings, produced a program entittled, "Red October." It took place October 17th to early November, since the F/A-18's flew across the Atlantic Ocean in two separate flights one on the seventeenth and the other on the eighteenth of October 1996. I taped the two hour special and have viewed it several times to extract information.

It was about a group of eight US Navy F/A-18C's and two "D's" that flew from Oceana NAS, Virginia, USA to Laage, Germany for a two weeks syllabus on how best to fight the MiG.-29 Fulcrum. Some time later at Aviano, Italy a group of F-16C's also had a syllabus with the MiG.-29's of the 73rd Fighter Squadron.

During the program Red October, mention was made of tacticS on how (the MiG.) could "win" in the BVR arena and penetrate to the WVR arena. On the chalk board was a diagram of the "beam maneuver" being used. As the Luftwaffe and Navy pilots talked (a BS session), mention was made to other tactics to penetrate the BVR arena and get past the radar and radar lock-on of Western fighters.

A little later there was a discussion about tactics on how to penetrate in the WVR arena and get to the gun range/furball..... past the HMDS! On day three one F/A-18 was one the other side of a turning circle against a MiG.-29. Gun camera video shows the F/A-18 firing at 2,400 feet slant range on the MiG.-29. After seeing that portion of the video several times I could see the little black rectangle in the upper left portion of the screen indicating the gun being fired.

They both were nearly in the vertical plane. The F/A-18 was nose down and the MiG.-29 was nose high. When looking across the turning circle the F/A-18 pilot could see the MiG. slowly getting the advantage. So the F/A-18 extended a little then pulled his nose high in AOA (relative to his course) and got a guns kill on the MiG.-29. Until the F/A-18 extended a little then pulled his nose high in AOA, the MiG.-29 was close to being able to kill the F/A-18 with the HMDS!"

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1827-start-0...tview&t=1827&start=0 (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1827-start-0.html?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=1827&start=0)

Esel1964
10-09-2008, 01:34 AM
I'm a definite "YES",but there's alot of stuff uncovered before that. i.e. finishing WW2,Korea,etc.

stalkervision
10-09-2008, 05:05 AM
A lot of huys here will have trouble even handling a Korean sim because of the added speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
10-09-2008, 05:31 AM
You could just as easily argue that dogfighting ended in 1918 since WWII dogfights were not
the same tight swirling messes that they got to be by end of WWI.

Arguably BnZ started in WW1 with Spads!

M_Gunz
10-09-2008, 05:38 AM
Arguably the first energy fighter was the Fokker Eindekker piloted by Bolcke himself!

ploughman
10-09-2008, 05:54 AM
A Vietnam sim's going to be an essential part of any Robin Olds career campaign.

Breeze147
10-09-2008, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
+4 No Bloody missiles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


..... I don't understand! Wouldn't it be exciting to shoot your missiles at microscopic 1 pixel specks on your pc screen, then watch the speck turn red after a while? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shift F-7 to see enemy get hit.

Swivet
10-09-2008, 11:01 AM
That's just it..In real war.."Real" ppl are getting killed..Nobody wants to be up close and personal with real death...Now take us for instance playing a "game" "sim" whatever...We want fun right?...So firing a missile 20 miles away and maybe hitting your target is no fun to me "imo" When you get into a close gun fight, all those fancy bells,whistles, and radar, blah blah...is just fancy eyecandy at that point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I use to play Novalogics F-22 Raptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor_(game))as my first flight sim..Yes by today's standards it's very arcadish, even back then in 1998 it was..But it was fun, everyone had basically the same technique of dodging missiles, which was staying at that 45 degree angle with enough speed. That game was really fun at the time. Squads, great servers, i met a few good friends. But all that aside we always ended up to "guns only" fights. The thing i hated was when you were engaged in a turning guns only fight, that some idiot fires a missile from 20 miles away and takes your kill you fought for 20 minutes for..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VF-17_Jolly
10-09-2008, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
F4 phantom drivers in Vietnam were required to be in visual range of a target to fire their missiles. This was instituted because of an earlier friendly fire incident.

But flight sim drivers are not required to be in visual range of anyone before they fire their missiles, that`s the whole point

F-105 or A-6 would be cool "down town" playing in the background as your bombing Hanoi

R_Target
10-09-2008, 04:10 PM
http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/products/assets/images/0847_22_o.jpg