|
Yeah gently caress that Hartmann guy
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Flying a Canadair Sabre what a scrub
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
The crazy thing about the Sabres is how simple they appear. It's just a man, an engine, some guns, and some control surfaces to point them Maybe it's the unpainted metal skin?  The newer planes and even the P-80 just never seemed to visually boil it down to such basics. The pilot seems much more integrated instead of just slapped onto the killparts as an afterthought.  The Soviets maintained this aesthetic for some time, though    Heck, some of these are still flying:  
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
I got to see an F-86 and an F-100 fly last week. It was a good week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The crazy thing about the Sabres is how simple they appear. It's just a man, an engine, some guns, and some control surfaces to point them Yeah I was going to say that sounds like a MiG-21 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
There really is something about the aesthetics of the F-86, and I think that it comes from the bubble canopy and wings that, while swept, aren't going full delta yet. I don't know, there's just something about it where you look at the thing and go "yup, this is the logical conclusion of a road that had the P40 ,P51, P80, etc. on it." It just feels like the obvious final iteration of an era, while the stuff after it feels like the beginning of something new. Might be as simple as all the .50 cals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
I've always thought the Sabre was extremely aesthetically pleasing. I was more disappointed than you know when 1C sort of imploded after IL-2 1946, because Luthier was talking about a Korean War sim and I really wanted a Sabre simulator.  Much like Snowden's Secret, I too have been to Udvar-Hazy.  North American F-86A Sabre - 01 by notpsion, on Flickr On an related note, it may be ugly, it may be maligned, and it has a truly terrible nickname, but there's ... something about the F-105.  Republic F-105D Thunderchief - 02 by notpsion, on Flickr also, best prop plane or best prop plane?  Vought F4U-1D Corsair - 02 by notpsion, on Flickr there will be a quiz Psion fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Psion posted:I've always thought the Sabre was extremely aesthetically pleasing. I was more disappointed than you know when 1C sort of imploded after IL-2 1946, because Luthier was talking about a Korean War sim and I really wanted a Sabre simulator. I presume you played Mig Alley back in the day? Much like a lot of those old, awesome flight sims that never had a suitable replacement made there have been some awesome mods done for it. You might want to check those out. I swear though, there are three things I would kill for. 1) a halfway quality USB flight stick that isn't crazy expensive. gently caress it, I'd pay $20 just for a USB->joystick port adapter for my old Thrustmaster. Why the gently caress don't we have a good mid-ranged company like Thrustmaster anymore? 2) a good WW1 sim on a modern engine. poo poo, just re-make Red Baron 3D (well, as it existed with the better mods rolled in ca. 2005 or so) in a modern engine. Goddamn I love WW1 sims. 3) same as above, but Korea / Mig Alley.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
1) What's wrong with saitek's midrange gear? 2) http://riseofflight.com/en Rise of Flight is supposed to be quite good for ww1 flight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:1) What's wrong with saitek's midrange gear? Do they make anything in the $40-60 range? The last time I looked into all this was about two years ago, and back then all I saw from them was $150-ish stick/throttle sets. I honestly haven't looked in years, though. If the market finally responded to the dismal lack of controllers it might be time for me to get back into sims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:1) a halfway quality USB flight stick that isn't crazy expensive. gently caress it, I'd pay $20 just for a USB->joystick port adapter for my old Thrustmaster. Why the gently caress don't we have a good mid-ranged company like Thrustmaster anymore? I've heard good things about the Thrustmaster T160000 insofar as 'cheap, USB, not bad.' Me, I'm still babying my Sidewinder Precision Pro. It's kept going for years and years. Saitek has some midrange stuff but I've always found it fairly iffy - I mean, good controller precision, decent feel in the hand, but it never lasted. I guess it wasn't meant for heavy use. Their HOTAS setups (X52? whatever) at ~$150 are pretty good - for $150 - but the sim market is basically people who will pay $300 for Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS setups and then drop hundreds more on pedals and a TrackIR, and then probably double all that buying their own pots and doing custom work to everything, so ... Psion fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:2) a good WW1 sim on a modern engine. poo poo, just re-make Red Baron 3D (well, as it existed with the better mods rolled in ca. 2005 or so) in a modern engine. Goddamn I love WW1 sims. The Zeppelin interception missions were really unrealistic 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I presume you played Mig Alley back in the day? 1) The flight sim thread's standard advice regarding cheap joysticks is get a Logitech 3D Pro, then once you have the money and if you want more, to get a TrackIR. 2) Seconding Rise of Flight, it's fantastic. 3) The only thing that comes close is Strike Fighters 2 with mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Psion posted:I've heard good things about the Thrustmaster T160000 insofar as 'cheap, USB, not bad.' I have an X52 and it feels like I'm holding my dick, it's so limp. I only use it for sims that need all those buttons and hats like the DCS series, otherwise I bust out the 3D Pro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:2) http://riseofflight.com/en Rise of Flight is supposed to be quite good for ww1 flight. Yeah, I looked at these guys a while ago. Off the top of my head: 1) I'm kind of tired of the F2P model. I'd rather just drop $50 now than keep dishing out for new aircraft, campaigns, etc piecemeal. 2) I really, really want some kind of long-term campaign. The sense of progression that you got from firing up a new guy in 1916 in RB3D, keeping track of his career as he progressed, using new aircraft as they historically became available, eventually getting promoted high enough to be squadron commander and unlocking a few decisions that you could make per-mission about the loadouts etc for your other pilots - all that was really neat. Just firing up missions and shooting things down absent of that structure always seems empty to me. I know I"m being picky as gently caress, but I just miss the types of games that I played the gently caress out of as a kid. Aces over Europe/the Pacific, RB3d, European Air War, hell even the older Lucasarts stuff like SWOTL and BB:TFH. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Falcon 3.0 with all the add ons whatup
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
I think the x52 is still around the $100 mark. Thrustmaster does make a $40 hotas setup http://www.amazon.com/Thrustmaster-...ords=saitek+x52 though I can't vouch for the quality. Those seem to be the two main options for cheap hotas setups, although there's plenty of single joysticks out there if you don't a throttle. It is definetly still an expensive gadget though, most of the really cool stuff out there is in the 200 dollar and up range. I use an x52 myself, and it's been ok. Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, I looked at these guys a while ago. Off the top of my head: Pretty sure rise of flight has a career mode now, I don't know how in depth it is as far as choices or unlocks, but it'll let you be a pilot on day to day missions. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah they added a career a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
To put things into perspective: I was never the giant, spergiest sim geek but I had a lot of fun with the mid-tier "sorta serious' ones. You know, the point where you felt a real sense of acomplishment when you babied a shot to poo poo airplane into making it back to a friendly base, but where the physics wasn't so spergtastic that just taking off required a pilot's license, a degree in physics, and 8 plug-in controls. It seems like everything these days is geared to the groups that either want to manually set fuel mixture and propeller pitch before they take off, or the people who want an arcade game where they have an outside-the-cockpit view and just zoom around watching explosions. I'll be honest, all of this is probably wasted naval gazing. I do the same thing once every couple years. Get all nostalgic about how awesome it was playing RB3D as a kid, look into what it would cost to get back into it all, and realize that the entry cost for equipment that doesn't blow is a just tad more than what I want to pay and the whole field looks like it's split between super-hardcore sim spergs and utterly cartoonish action games. Maybe it's a misapprehension, and I'm sure people that are still into sims are having fun, so I won't waste time trying to make up excuses for this that and the other thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Strike Fighters 2 actually is more or less what you're looking for, it's just that its timeframe is the late 50's to early 80's. I don't consider Rise Of Flight that spergy but then I know the cockpit of a Ka-50 like the back of my hand just from playing DCS Black Shark so :V
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Sounds like you want Over Flanders Fields description http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/03/the-flare-path-catenaries-and-dirigibles/ Game http://www.overflandersfields.com/ Quote RPS: "The general consensus seems to be that while Rise of Flight whips OFF in the flight modelling and netcode departments, the situation is reversed when it comes to bandit AI and long-term singleplayer satisfaction (...) - hundred of intelligently generated incidental sorties, a plausibly mobile frontline… Old Brown Dog have gone to incredible lengths to ensure their solo customers feel bound to their squadrons, and those squadrons feel like they’re participating in a titanic struggle."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Psion posted:also, best prop plane or best prop plane? Either it or the Lysander to its 1 or 2 o'clock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:1) The flight sim thread's standard advice regarding cheap joysticks is get a Logitech 3D Pro, then once you have the money and if you want more, to get a TrackIR. That's funny, I despised the 3D Pro. Worse QA/QC than Saitek. I'm going to hope they've gotten better in the last couple years. Also about the X52, I may be thinking of the X52 Pro - there was an X52 model where they tightened it up and made it less floppy terrible. I forget, because I haven't used a Saitek heavily since the X45. In Battlefield 1942. Talk about overkill. e: oh right the 3dpro was also too light. It's like I needed to tape a roll of quarters to the underside of it. I don't slam my sticks around like some hulk pilot of rage, but I do want the base to stay still during maneuvers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I got one of those Thrustmaster HOTAS sticks linked earlier, and it's ok. I preferred my oldschool Logitech Wingman Interceptor (best stick) but it must have gotten lost in a move or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Psion posted:That's funny, I despised the 3D Pro. Worse QA/QC than Saitek. I'm going to hope they've gotten better in the last couple years. Also about the X52, I may be thinking of the X52 Pro - there was an X52 model where they tightened it up and made it less floppy terrible. I forget, because I haven't used a Saitek heavily since the X45. In Battlefield 1942. Talk about overkill. While yes it is light, that is nothing some screws/clamps can't fix. Also if you are jerking your joystick as hard as you are saying you are doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:While yes it is light, that is nothing some screws/clamps can't fix. Also if you are jerking your joystick as hard as you are saying you are doing it wrong. you see the part where I said I wasn't doing that? :p also it's not a problem I've had with, at this point, probably a dozen other models, so I'm going to hold this against Logitech, yes. Saiteks, Microsoft, Thrustmaster, generic $10 no-names with suction cups on the bottom (haha I hated those) ... whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:To put things into perspective: Yeah, Forums Terrorist has it right. Third Wire makes Strike Fighters 2, which is pretty much what you're describing. It's not too arcadey, and it's not too realistic either. Strike Fighters 2 is their basic "fly F-100s and F-4s over a fictional desert in the 50s and 60s" sim, they've got some that takes things into the late 70s with F-15s and A-10s, one with F-14s, and also a WWI sim called First Eagles. They're by the guy who did European Air War, which may have been the last of the middle level combat flight sims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There really is something about the aesthetics of the F-86, and I think that it comes from the bubble canopy and wings that, while swept, aren't going full delta yet. I'd say there's a generational difference between the "transonic" F-86 and later supersonic century series designs that's visually obvious because of the area rule. If I remember correctly the area rule was discovered while trying to get better supersonic performance with the F-102.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:If I remember correctly the area rule was discovered while trying to get better supersonic performance with the F-102. Sort of correct. Whitcomb had discovered the area rule independently without working on any specific project, but the first major project it was applied to was the F-102 (and of course Frenzl actually discovered it first in the '40s in Germany). Here is what the difference between "firmly subsonic" and "Mach 1.22 capable" looks like: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Psion posted:Much like Snowden's Secret, I too have been to Udvar-Hazy. Udvar-Hazy owns. Most other museums either have the planes packed in like sardines or they're engineless husks.  The F-105 is impressive but also compared to the Sabre it's absurdly enormous. Its design as a tactical nuclear bomber really shows through. A lot of the other design changes of the time reflect the shift from fixed guns to missiles as the primary air-air weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Incoming intel. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ quote:Intelligence Imagery Set to be Disclosed in 2013 I expect them to degrade the image quality to conceal the true capabilities of the system, but it will be fun browsing none the less. p.s. That F-100 Sexy Saber 
Schindler's Fist fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Oct 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Seems like the  (scroll down on that site for the last video, the previous ones were deleted and then watch the video titled "Leopard 2 Pitstop")
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Last time this this awkward Ukranian thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5esFZYxg3rg was stolen by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp7HVU-s7aI
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Did someone say Udvar-Hazy? Getting to see both an F-86 and an F-100 fly last week was something of a (smoky) religious experience.  Glad there's still a few of em out there and people dedicated to keeping them airworthy and on tour.
wkarma fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
So it looks like the Chinese are going to adopt an SU-27 derivative for the new carrier fighter. I read somewhere that the Mig-29K was really a better carrier fighter than the Sukhoi and that the Russians ended up with the Sukhoi largely for political reasons. Is that true?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So it looks like the Chinese are going to adopt an SU-27 derivative for the new carrier fighter. I read somewhere that the Mig-29K was really a better carrier fighter than the Sukhoi and that the Russians ended up with the Sukhoi largely for political reasons. Is that true? Depends on how you define "better"...the Flanker has a longer range, larger payload, and is therefore probably a better carrier defense aircraft (think Tomcat vs Hornet). But the MiG has a better avionics package and was actually capable of air to surface operations...however, that is not a shortcoming of the Flanker family as a whole but rather a result of the harsh fiscal environment when the Su-33 was coming online (a carrier version of the Su-35 would obviously be way more capable than either the Su-33 or MiG-29K, but upgrading the Su-33 fleet wasn't really an option). This is why Russia bought MiG-29Ks to replace the aging Su-33s, now that they actually have some money and it would be cheaper to just buy the newer better MiG-29Ks that had an open production line for India's aircraft as opposed to trying to upgrade the Su-33 or restart development of an upgraded carrier capable Su-35 type jet. Given that the J-15 will have upgraded indigenously developed avionics and weapons, I don't think you can extrapolate that criticism to the Chinese Navy's aircraft, especially when everything I've seen indicates that the J-15 will be multirole, with a surface attack capability. I don't know if one design was "better around the boat" than the other, but given that there isn't any direct criticism of either being a turkey I think that any trivial difference in that area is a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Isn't the Su-27 really big? That seems like a downside for a carrier fighter since the Russian carrier is smaller than an American one. Then I looked it up and found out the F-14 is even bigger and heavier than the Sukhoi so v  v
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Isn't the Su-27 really big? That seems like a downside for a carrier fighter since the Russian carrier is smaller than an American one. grover fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
The land-based MiG has known combat range issues. If the -29K doesn't somehow address those that'd be a prime reason to go with the Su for naval use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
grover posted:Su-37 is a ton bigger than the Mig-29. 72x48' vs 57x27' and weighs about 50% more, too. F-14 is kinda in the middle between them, 64x38'. Edit: Holy poo poo the -35 is massive. Snowdens Secret posted:The land-based MiG has known combat range issues. If the -29K doesn't somehow address those that'd be a prime reason to go with the Su for naval use. It was designed as a point defense interceptor so this is understandable. Wiki says the -29K (w/o drop tanks) has a comparable combat radius to a Hornet (w/o drop tanks) due to increased internal fuel though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 18:21
|
|