David Hingtgen

Nope. Dragon has a VX-9 F-14D coming up, going to see how that is. There is always the hope they may add a pitot to the nose some day, they did modify the F-15's to fix some errors. Been looking at their WWII planes, it's amazing how well they got subtle Bf109 differences correct, yet totally messed up the Fw190's basic design features, much less the specific variants.

Whoops, I forgot it was the generals etc who were anti-canard, I know that came up before, probably in this very thread 500 posts ago...

I think Knight26 agrees with me that canards have almost no detriments and should be on almost every plane from now on. They're not on US planes simply because US designers don't like them for reasons unknown. "Because birds don't" isn't any excuse---birds also don't have thrust-vectoring nor ailerons, flaps, elevators, or anything else required to make a plane move. Anyways---the Typhoon is quite stealthy from head-on, possibly equaling the F-22. While the F-22 is stealthy from all angles, and stealthier overall, the EF-2000 was designed to be very stealthy from head-on, and achieves it despite the canards. Gripen is also "decently" stealthy up front I think. Will have to look up Rafale and check Gripen again. It's fairly simple---you can either have 2 h.stabs at the back or 2 canards up front---you're going to get a similar radar return. (Placing the stabs in line with the wings to hide them from head on is aerodynamically very bad) And lift up front is better than adding weight/drag/downforce at the back, aerodynamically. One of the biggest improvements for canards on the F-15 was supersonic agility---it's directly related to the reason the F-14 has glove vanes----as you go faster, stabilizer effectiveness decreases due to lift moving rearwards---the glove vanes added lift up front to help pitch at supersonic speeds---exactly like a canard would. Grumman just didn't call them "retractable canards" because US designers don't use canards...

Navy/Marine agressors have the motto "Fight to teach, not fight to kill". In other words: If you have a stripped-down ultra-high-performance F-16, and your only job is to fight F-15's and you spend all your time training for that, you will probably beat them easily. If you show up, beat every pilot in the squadron in 5 mins, what will the F-15 pilots have learned? Not much. The goal is usually more along the lines of "Fly like a MiG-29 using Soviet tactics and formations, so the F-15 pilots can see what it'd be like to encounter that formation in real life, and how Soviet-style tactics develop into typical scenarios". Aggressor squadrons are not "send up the best possible pilot in the best possible plane and see how many "normal" squadron pilots he can beat". They try to simulate other planes, tactics, and formations. Some countries use 3-hi 1-low formations, some use finger-four, some use line abreast, some like groups of 2 or 5. Getting experience in dealing with that is more important than raw "F-15 vs MiG-29 turn rate at Mach .7" Detection, identification, response, etc---those are what really differentiate different countries' tactics. PS---the USAF however did tend to have more "aggressive" aggressor squadrons, that simply roamed about beating up on other squadrons. That's why they're gone now----burned a lot of fuel without really teaching anything.

The F-21 was acquired purely to have something that could simulate Mirages as an aggressor. No US plane could be flown at all like a French delta, and (amazingly) France didn't want to sell us Mirages. Since France sold Mirages of all types to every other country, we had a great need to see exactly how they fly and how to fight them since they would be about the most likely plane to be encountered after the MiG-21. So we acquired Kfirs from Israel (which are basically Knock-off Mirage III's re-engined with J79's). The canards are fixed, so they mainly just "unload" the wing rather than control pitch.

USN F-21:

On that note, a MiG-28

IMHO the only thing worth the extra cost is Tamiya masking tape. It is that much better than other brands. Mr Surfacer is an exception, being that it's pretty unique and there isn't really a cheaper alternative "semi-liquid priming putty". Primers---I try everything. You can experiment with 10 different hardware/automotive brands for the price of one can of "modeling" primer. And of course, sometimes you do find that cheap can of primer that is also the perfect final color. Still don't have a favorite, and actually still like Testor's basic enamel spray cans more than most. Cheaper than ModelMaster/Tamiya spray cans, but still a lot more than hardware/automotive. Still have to try Duplicolor.

That was Strike Commander. 335039[/snapback] Thanks! Would have taken a while for me to go through all "90's PC flight games" to find it.

White Rhino, Vandy Five:

I think it'd be really easy to make a Harrier: simply change L1 from "airbrake" to "nozzle control". Unpressed---nozzles back (forward flight). Pressed lightly---nozzles down/hover. Pressed hard--nozzle forwards/fly backwards/slow down. R1 would act like normal for the throttle. It would overall be similar to the other planes control-wise, just with an added dimension of L1 allowing a hover or backwards flight. And unlike the other planes, L1+R1 together would actually work, and give a vertical ascent (nozzles hover, power up). Or L1 hard+R1, for a very rapid deceleration. Man, I really need to go find my book that shows some air combat tactics for the Sea Harrier, messing with the nozzles while inverted or in an immelman gives some unique moves. Imagine you're at the top of the loop, then you press L1 and R1----you'd descend straight down, inverted.

Played through AC4 again, had some thoughts about what I'd like to see in AC0: 1. F-8 2. Mirage F1. Because we need a French plane that's NOT A DELTA. 3. MiG-23. Because we always get the 21 and the 29, that's a huge gap. Need something inbetween. I've always felt flight-arcade (as opposed to true flight-sim) games were better when stuff was expensive. If you can buy every new plane the moment it comes out, there's not nearly so much incentive for multiple play throughs. Stuff shouldn't be super-expensive, but you shouldn't be able to buy 30 planes in 20 missions with your loads of cash. Also--weapons. As we pretty much agreed upon, the weapon differences are more important than plane differences. Weapons should be unlocked/available similar to planes. Getting AMRAAM's early changes everything. Can't remember the name, but a PC game I had years ago had you play as a mercenary F-16 unit, and buying weapons was a big part of the money management. AIM-9M's cost a lot more than AIM-9J's----is all-aspect worth the expense? You paid for every bullet and every missile. A new plane was a one-time expense, but if you fired off a half-dozen laser-guided Mavericks every mission you'd quickly run out of cash. While AC0 probably couldn't work like that (80+ AIM-9's in the F-22) it would certainly add a layer of complexity if weapons were a constant or frequent expense. Maybe you'd be allotted unlimited 20mm and AIM-9's from whoever you're working for, but anything else cost $$$. Wingmen---we know so far AC0 has you as a mercenary, and has wingmen commands again (or something similar, they mention the AI/CPU does now too). In AC2 you could hire wingmen for individual missions. I never thought they were worth the expense. But in AC0, if you could hire different, distinct wingmen that'd be really interesting. Both flying and story-wise. Even better if you start off as a lone mercenary with one plane, and eventually have enough money to form an entire squadron. THAT would be great, I think. AC5 gives you a lot to start with----you, an F-5, and 3 wingmen with F-5's. If AC0 starts you off alone in a Draken, and ends with 4 people with F-22's, that'd be a fun squadron to build up over a long time. Might take 2 or 3 play-throughs before you can have THAT much stuff. (And if you could build your own base, with your own maintenance shop to upgrade planes, etc---possibilities--though we're getting a bit RPG-ish with all the "home base" stuff) If someone's not good enough, kick them out. (According to my AC5 stats after some 5000 kills, Chopper's the worst pilot based on kills vs missions flown). Ace pilots would cost more to hire, but would be worth it. And it could all be incorporated into the story. Of course, I still expect AC0 to be 99% similar to AC5 (which'd still be a really good game) but there's just so much that could be added. Maybe we'll see "base/squadron building" in AC6.

Omega One---I'm very interested in how you weathered that. I have several copies of that kit (haven't built any yet, plan to make Block 30B, 40, and 42 from them)

Not "hobby shop specific" but toothpicks are amazingly versatile and useful for everything from painting to gluing. Running out of toothpicks for me is worse than running out of Xacto blades. I would recommend sanding FILMS as opposed to sand PAPER. I find films much better in every aspect. The grit is glued onto thin sheets of plastic rather than sheets of paper.

I was thinking it's NORTHROP and an *F-5* variant. They went from 2x J85's to 1x F404. That's a heck of a lot more work than F404 to F414. They built the X-29's from two F-5A's and spare F-20 parts. And the F-20 has plenty of extra room in the back end---the rear fuselage is widened simply to keep the underside the same width and shape as the original F-5 despite the narrower engine installation. If they need more room to redesign the mounts, it's there without affecting aerodynamics at all. Unlike the Legacy Hornet, where's there's not a spare inch in the aft fuselage.

Random thought I just had: Since the F414 is exactly the same size as the F404, it would be easy to put in the F-20. That would give the F-20 a combat (not empty) power/weight ratio of nearly 1.5 to 1. What could have been...

The -22 has different belly details, due to a gunpod/missile launcer difference. The two large "belly plates", forward/outer section. I don't have any GOOD pics readily available. I'm not sure of if it's actually a shape difference or simply engravings/details.

Going a bit OT, but from what I've read: For enamels/lacquers, it's the solvent that's nasty if you breathe it in. For acrylics, the paint itself is nasty if you breathe in particles when spraying. (It sticks to your lungs like asbestos) Basically---it's all bad for you, just in different ways. I think brush-painting with acrylics is about the only "safe" thing, anything else you should have lots of ventilation or a mask. PS--I do like most colors of "jet exhaust" paint, but almost every one I've tried seems to behave strangely, it just won't mix well (you can see streaks of different colors in the bottle no matter how much you stir) and is always goopy. I've been using Gunze Burnt Iron and Tamiya Metallic Grey lately for jet exhausts, fans.

I too wanted a Tornado F3 bad, but it was the last fighter I ever unlocked---at which point it was one of the worst fighters in the game. (Love the plane, but when you can use the YF-23 or Su-37 there's little point) Plus the GR4 is so similar to the GR1, and the ECR (like all ECM planes in the game) is really useless. That's about the only plane I thought there were too MANY of. All you need is the IDS and ADV. Anything else is kinda pointless, and having them all evolve simultaneously just made the ADV F3 take forever to get, making it too little too late. Current-day F3's have AMRAAMx4 and ASRAAMx4 for standard armament---that'd make it really useful in the game, as it's the WEAPONS the plane has that's really important in games like these---see following point: Personally, I'd rather have the WEAPONS evolve/selectable instead of the plane. Really, for most of them in AC5 that's all that really changes--same plane, same stats, just new weapons and paint. I mean, the F-14D is the F-14B with Phoenixes. Su-35 is Su-27 with AA-12's (and +1 agility). The F-18C would be a MUCH more useful plane if you could choose and upgrade weapons--start with Sparrows and Harpoons, and end with AMRAMM's and SLAM-ER's. In AC5, it's good for ships and nothing else simply due to only having Harpoons. Having multiple weapons would allow you to use many early planes even late in the game---and by doing so, would help them acquire upgrades, as you wouldn't be limited to using them only in the early missions.

My point isn't really the plane itself, it's that such a GOOD plane comes out so early. You could easily substitute Su-47 or F-15S/MTD for F-22 there. They are SO agile it changes the whole game dynamic. (IMHO). Or, once you get a current-gen fighter, the AI ramps up really fast or they start bringing in Su-30MKI's. I also like it when a new plane "matches" the upcoming mission. There's little point in unlocking the A-10, then giving us 2 dogfights in a row. Conversely, getting the F-15C before a "fortress assault" mission---you've got a new plane but can't really use it for a while. Then you end up getting a backlog of planes to try out. Other possibility---choosing what planes to unlock. Instead of multiple paths, simply offer two new planes every time, and the player can pick which one they want. That'd give everyone what they want pretty quickly. Then you can get all the ones you didn't pick on the second run. Oh, final comment/rant. I really want Namco to "split up" the plane families to upgrade them. The F-16 takes FOREVER to upgrade because it wants all the points for the entire family, since it wants to unlock them all at once. F-15 suffers from the same problem. Conversely, the F-5 and F-14 upgrade quickly since you only do one at a time. Make them all one at a time, or allow us to CHOOSE which one to develop. I didn't want the F-16 Blk 60 at all and never fly it, but really wanted the XL. By making the XL and Blk 60 "evolve" together, it made it take twice as long with twice as many points needed. Goes along with my previous comments, in that you spend so much time trying to upgrade a plane (due to it needing excessive points due to being lumped in with other variants) that it gets left behind. I can go from F-5 to F-20 and F-14A to F-14B, in the time it takes to get like 1/4 of the bar filled on the base F-15/16.

More thoughts: 1. I want the Area 88 planes. F-8, *Sea* Harrier, Mirage F.1 (the only Mirage that's not a delta), A-4, F-5, etc. 2. The best planes should come at the END of the game. AC4/5 give you the F-22 way too early, you can use it for like half the game. It should only be there for the last mission or two IMHO. I always feel like I get better and better planes very quickly, and the planes get better faster than the enemy AI does. Thus, I actually get "lazier" in my flying as the game goes on, as my planes just get so much more agile I don't really have to do anything other than fly circles until I'm in position. Not until the last mission does the AI "catch up" to your greatly improved planes and you'll actually have to dogfight again. Having an F-4 is much more fun and challenging, you have to actually fight. Give the F-15 at the mid-point, and the F-22 at the end. Not F-15 at mission 5, then F-22 at mission 10.

Something I just remembered: I want more variation in paint schemes, as well as more schemes that resemble real ones. Seriously, 90% of all AC5 planes are "generic 2-tone camo" or "generic 3-tone camo". Available in desert, jungle, and blue-grey. The Jolly Rogers F-14 schemes in AC5 were nice examples of realistic schemes. I've always loved the F-15C schemes in AC4, they were good examples of what I'm talking about for variation--don't really match anything I know of, but are unique and plausible. As opposed to some of AC4/5's gaudy "ace" schemes. AC0's F-15 schemes are somewhat like AC4's. (Though maybe leaning a bit towards the F-15 prototype schemes) Basically--I want something besides generic wavy camo all over, but not flowers and flourescent paint. There's plenty of middle ground, but we don't often see it from Nacmo.

YF-23 was flying in 1990, plenty old enough to be in the game. (As is the 22)

If you download the trailer, you'll see it's already 100% english so at least we won't have to wait for it to be dubbed like so many games. As for dual language---I think there's good odds. I doubt it'd be much larger disc-wise than AC5 and so there should be room for both audio tracks.

Lots of people want some older planes, and the appearance of the Draken helps, but I'll still be amazed if we get anything other than that. My current theory is the Draken is a "replacement" for the F-4E in the game. Every other AC game has the F-4E as the oldest basic plane, I think the Draken will have that role in this game, and then it'll start the normal F-5, F-16 progression of the other games. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Next point---what do you want in the game? I want multiple/selectable weapons for each plane----the F-15C should not be instantly outclassed by the F-18E simply due to the game giving the 18E AMRAAMs and leaving the 15C with Sparrows. Weapons should be able to be upgraded much the same way as planes. I think it'd work well----in AC5, flying a plane a lot got you better versions of that plane. Weapons should be the same----using lots of Sparrows should unlock the AMRAAM, etc. And as for selectable weapons---same thing---an F-16CJ should be able to have HARMs or Paveways or AMRAAM's. It's a multirole fighter, it should be able to fly any mission. I personally love using the F-16 as a midgame light fighter, but in AC5 they give it dumb bombs and Sidewinders---not the best combo for that role. That's one feature of Air Force Delta Strike I really liked---you could buy different weapons for your planes, and choose what to take on each mission. All in all, I actually expect it to be 99% identical to AC5, simply a new story.