Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
This post is deleted! -
to have homestead air base in the game as an option. i cant find one.
-
to have homestead air base in the game as an option. i cant find one.
Well, if you’re referring to Homestead Air Base in South Florida, then that would definitely be cool.
I could fly there from my home (Broward County)!! :uham:
But I don’t know what theater they could make for us Floridians!! Battle for Cuba perhaps?? :roll: -
Ooooh Cuba would be awesome. It’s a pity that the Cuban Air Force is pretty much grounded these days, they had/have some of the most fantastic color schemes on their Migs.
…. Go Fighting Makos!
It would make for a great “What if” campaign.
Likewise, Vietnam could be a great theater as well - spanning Laos and Thailand and could be geared to several scenario’s. E.g. what if the Vietnam war would drag on into the 90s? With the Russian supplying them Su-27s and USAF F-16s operating out of Thailand and South Vietnam?
Or what if a new conflict would erupt between Thailand and Communist Vietnam? With Thai AF F-16s and deployed USAF F-16s?
A revamped Desert Storm theater would also be most welcome actually.
-
A revamped Desert Storm theater would also be most welcome actually.
merrica, **** yea!
-
A Desert Storm theater could be quite versatile and could spawn a multitude of different campaigns.
There’s of course the historic Desert Storm campaign in which the F-16 was the most numerous aircraft, I believe there were 249 Vipers deployed to the Gulf region.
I cannot remember if any of the Guard units deployed with A models, or if they were all Block 25 C/Ds and up. This could be extended with Northern + Southern Watch campaigns which also saw plenty of air combat action.Then there is the Iraqi invasion of 2003 - no air threats, but still plenty of SAMs and CAS, although I’m not sure how interesting that would be. However, a fictitious twist with a revamped, re-equipped Iraqi Air Force could work quite well.
Or even a deployed Iranian Air Force to support the Iraqi’s (the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, that sort of thing) could be really interesting. Fighting Iranian F-4Es, F-5Es and F-14s over Baghdad.
(That’s actually not too far fetched as the Iranian Air Force deployed SU-25s to Iraq to help combat ISIS).In particular now that we have carrier ops working, this could really add another dimension to the theater, both for the historic Desert Storm and fictitious campaigns, with Iran being dragged into a fictitious campaign at a later point in time?
-
IRCC the ANG deployed block 10s and there is a great story of a SEAD mission carried out by the SCANG.
-
Ability to task AI in other flights in package, e.g., vector escort to known threats, etc.
-
Fixing the typo in this thread’s title.
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
-
Limited realism though, they wouldn’t repeat it ad lib.
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
Not a bad idea … I like it. But before that, it would be better to see AI acting AFTER having received an order (after the message has been actually played) … but we have a real problem : Chatter overcrowded … and your idea will even make it worse (especially in MP).
What would be good, is to separate the Ground, the Tower, the Approach, the Check In and the Tactical frequencies to “reduce” the amount of messages … or … to be able to play them in a more realistic way.
In any cases, we still have to face one of the biggest issue about radio implementation in Flacon4 => we have only ONE voice channel at a time. It is in fact impossible to play two messages on both UHF and VHF at the same time giving queue issues and AFAIK, this is not gonna be solved anytime soon. -
This post is deleted! -
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
-
Technical/Code limitation or just nobody wants to work on it?
Rather because everybody is working something different at present time.
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
Yes.
Oh, and because it hasn’t been mentioned in a while… Link 16–ahaha
As my friend says :
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
I believe something missing in comms from AI AWACS etc is the command repeat last transmition. I know the command in Greek but not in English and iirc doesnt exist in Falcon.
Simultanious overlapping comms are common i believe. So u ask by id to repeat.
Like tango and lima overlap.
U ask first tango to repeat as u believe most importand and then ask lima to repeat.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
MorteSil … Joke aside I propose you something different. Rather than loosing time on asking why we are gonna do it or why we think it is a big “peace of cake”, why not trying on your side to do it on an SP4 base, and if you succeed (which I have no doubt since it seems easy for you) transfer the part of the code which might be copied (or mimicked) on our side. Even if only partially implemented … such as a demonstrator lets say. … Take your chance … ! … maybe by doing this, you could raise the interest of the team. Chitchatting here won’t help you nor will help us I am afraid. I am not a coder.
-