|
I loved the commentary on the bonus video. I've already lost track, but I don't think you've flown the F-16UD yet. Also, is it just me or is the pacing in these scripted missions actually worse than SF2's random missions?
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
One neat little touch, even though I believe it's only cosmetic, is that when you locked up a target, you could see the radar switching into TWS mode with the reduced scan cone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
F-16UD, please! And count me in as another person who got a chuckle out of the bonus vid commentary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that bonus video was all kinds of hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
It probably won't win, but I'm voting for the F/A-18 because twin engines > single engine.  Edit: keeping my vote, but that is a very convincing argument \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ radintorov fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
radintorov posted:It probably won't win, but I'm voting for the F/A-18 because twin engines > single engine. But remember, Selenic has much better luck bombing in F-16s!  Go for the F-16UD
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
I now know everything I will ever need to about MiGs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
F-16UD it is. Recorded the mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:But remember, Selenic has much better luck bombing in F-16s! I knew buying this would pay off one day 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Man, I can't believe I didn't see this thread till now. And it's a game I've neither played nor even heard of before! How exciting 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:But remember, Selenic has much better luck bombing in F-16s!  video 8.1 video 8.2
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
I feel like I've learned a lot about MiG's. For a sim they sure don't simulate proper formations of those enemy ground units. But then again this is the same group that threw away those bombers on an unescorted flight so perhaps what is being simulated is a completely incompetent enemy force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:I feel like I've learned a lot about MiG's. Assume it's the Middle East, where everyone except Israel is terrible at this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
The future is LockMart   video 9.1 video 9.2
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
It's super weird that they have both the X-35 and the F-35 in the game. Did the first game have both? Still pretty cool that they got Kermit the Frog to guest as Steelmace 1.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
"I've got a lock on the enemy plane... Oh no, I don't!"  I don't know if any F-35 is hidden in the first EA since I haven't beaten it, and it doesn't even have a FAQ written for it. The one and only FAQ for aimStrike says a cleared save from EA could supposedly unlock all of its flyables in the second game right from start, so that might be the reason they kept the prototype in the sequel. Oh, I also got this in my recordings somehow... I wonder if anyone will recognize it just by the picture.  video 9.3
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
A Barnstormer Biplane, a Saab 21 lookalike, and a Bf-109 (and not even mislabeled Me-109!) that is quite an oddball set of planes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:
And you get that from your uncle who works at Nintendo
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:A Barnstormer Biplane, a Saab 21 lookalike, and a Bf-109 (and not even mislabeled Me-109!) that is quite an oddball set of planes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:Unlockables include a couple of UFOs, an autogyro and an F-117. Imagine that one sucking on a train. Are you going to show us anymore of this game? I'd love to see an autogyro flying into a volcanic eruption.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
I'd love to but I really can't come up with any commentary for it, and there's a lot of crazy flying involved in getting to the volcano.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
It seems like the X-35 is no trickier for enemy radars to lock on to than your other aircraft - so I'm presuming that means Energy Airforce doesn't model stealth, then?SelenicMartian posted:I'd love to but I really can't come up with any commentary for it, and there's a lot of crazy flying involved in getting to the volcano. It's a shame you can't think of any commentary for Sky Odyssey, it seems like it's delightfully deranged.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:It seems like the X-35 is no trickier for enemy radars to lock on to than your other aircraft - so I'm presuming that means Energy Airforce doesn't model stealth, then? It's time to find out in the new edition of Desert Bus  video 10.1 video 10.2
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Ah, yes. Scenario 4-2A. I honestly cannot blame you for doing the other scenario. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
They really make you fly all the way back? There's no way to speed it up? That's crazy! The F-22 information was really interesting, I can see why the Air Force was so desperate to keep the program. By the way, why don't Soviet carriers have catapults? Hasn't that been a standard piece of equipment for carriers since the 1920s or 1930s?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:By the way, why don't Soviet carriers have catapults? Hasn't that been a standard piece of equipment for carriers since the 1920s or 1930s? I didn't think catapults were a thing in WW2 for carriers. I'm aware of the Hurricanes that were strapped to merchant ships using catapults, but not carriers. I know for sure that the American carriers did not use catapults, but they did use arresting hooks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:By the way, why don't Soviet carriers have catapults? Hasn't that been a standard piece of equipment for carriers since the 1920s or 1930s?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I didn't think catapults were a thing in WW2 for carriers. I'm aware of the Hurricanes that were strapped to merchant ships using catapults, but not carriers. I know for sure that the American carriers did not use catapults, but they did use arresting hooks. I might be somewhat incorrect on the matter but as far as I recall the reason is something like this: Back then all carrier bound aircraft were capable of launching from the deck on their own power as long a the ship was sailing into the wind if I remember right. But as time went on carrier aircraft, both jet and propeller powered became heavier and weren't able to take off on a such a short deck by their own power so another mean to launch them was required. The Americans went with catapults to launch aircraft. So did the British for a while until their Invincible class ships which were built for the Harrier jet and instead utilized a ski ramp to boost the aircraft STOL capabilities and make it be able to take off without a catapult. Something which the Russians also went with in their case.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I didn't think catapults were a thing in WW2 for carriers. I'm aware of the Hurricanes that were strapped to merchant ships using catapults, but not carriers. I know for sure that the American carriers did not use catapults, but they did use arresting hooks. Yeah, I forgot catapults on carriers were a post-war thing. From doing a little reading, it seems the only reason not to use catapults is the expense. EasilyConfused fucked around with this message at 23:41 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Still pretty cool that they got Kermit the Frog to guest as Steelmace 1. I think Steelmace 1 was voiced by an actual neckbeard. Good to know we're represented in imaginary Air Force missions. I'm digging the LP. I know next to nothing about aircraft and ordinance and I enjoy the insightful commentary
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Things go boom. video 11.1 video 11.2 video 11.3
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Great update, I cracked up at the "are they cute?" line.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Man, were those Vietnam-era sidewinders they loaded in your F-22? I mean, two misses at that angle and that range...
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Great update, I cracked up at the "are they cute?" line. I think it's a matter of taste, but there's no doubting that the Flanker is sugoi.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:I think it's a matter of taste, but there's no doubting that the Flanker is sugoi. Sugoi, Sukhoi...I get it! 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Sugoi, Sukhoi...I get it! The Su-27 is pretty sleek, but the Su-33 is Sugoi As All Hell in Ace Combat Assault Horizon.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
I noticed occasionally that the LPI text was crossed out; presumably this means that for some reason you're more easily detectable. But it didn't appear to actually affect anything, so what does it actually indicate? Ignore me if Selenic Martian did in fact explain this and I am just too dumb to pay attention.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
I think LPI is crossed out if it's not applicable, e.g. in the nav mode when your radar is off anyway. Recording raw footage for the next update took me an hour and a half.  I can vouch now that enemy radar-guided missiles do work, they just take ages to fire.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Cascading structural failure. video 12.1 video 12.2 video 12.3 video 12.4 Probably a coincidence... So, what will it be, 5A or 5B?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
So the F-14 never gets unlocked? That's disappointing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:51
|
|