|
Yes! For Fucks Sake, please be the first LPer to actually finish one of these games. Also I'm a huge aviation and Strangereal Ace Combat nerd so I'll be watching this with baited breath.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Gideon020 posted:Ace Combat 4 and 5 are good war stories and the one in 6 is quite heartwarming as well. I only ever use cockpit view as well. I enjoy the added immersion, plus the external camera makes gunnery more difficult. In general, flying in 1st person feels much more precise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
TyrantSabre posted:
I, uh... forgot about that one  Sorry! If it makes you feel better, your Stuntman LP was outstanding.Mostly I was just referring to the litany of half-finished AC4 and AC5 LP's that have come through over the years, and the ACZero LP I was co-commentating for until the guy disappeared.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Kadorhal posted:As I understand it, the problem with the international version of 3 was that the original cost the dev team a shitton of money. Along with voice acting for 50 or so separate missions, it had cutscenes animated by Production I.G., which wouldn't come cheap. I seem to recall reading that's at least the reason why 04's cutscenes are all basically still images with narration, because they didn't have the money to even approach what they did for 3. Ironically, the graphic novel-style custscenes in 4 was superior narrative method to the rendered cutscenes in 5, which haven't aged well. Also, if we're signing up for guest commentary, then put me down too. Especially if you plan on using the F/A-18, since I used to work on those 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:6. The Aigaion. One of my favorite missions in 6, it also has one of the best tracks from its soundtrack. If that tickles people's fancies, then sure. Personally I don't mind commentary so much, but I do acknowledge that it's difficult to do the game justice if you're just talking over the hammy dialogue and awesome music.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Samovar posted:It is interesting to hear the English dialogue for this game since it is before really good localisation was achieved. The name of the co-pilot, the speech he gives... It's charmingly eccentric. If you think this baby turns tight, you're in for a big surprise. The jets you begin the game with all handle like big rigs compared to some of the stuff you can purchase later.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The Ace Combat series from 04-on in particular has a HUGE hard-on for the F-22. It's basically a flying "I WIN" button. I think that's a concession of the game's plot and development time more than their mistrust of players. AC6 had the most limited aircraft selection since the PS1 era games, and nothing was older than the A-10. I suppose they could have tossed you in a Mirage 2000, even though they're typically statistically similar to an F-16 in these games, they're usually relegated to trash mob status like the MiG-21.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Phy posted:I have wanted a 50's-60's era Ace Combat for basically ever since I finished 5. Me too. Flying an A-4 or the century-series aircraft in these types of games is something that hasn't really been done yet. It'd be really interesting because of how one-dimensional most designs of that era were.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
The US Air Force actually experimented with using Sidewinders as both ATGMs and Anti-Radiation Missiles during and after Vietnam, respectively. The AGM-87 Focus was a single-aspect AIM-9B modified to lock on to ground targets with significant infrared signatures, like tank exhausts, the IR spotlights common to vintage night vision equipment, or even the headlights of trucks. It was only used for a few years in a niche role before better solutions were developed. Later came the AGM-122 Sidearm. The USAF wanted to basically make any aircraft or helicopter with a Sidewinder rail capable of Wild Weasel missions, which normally required a significant payload capacity since the AGM-78 Standard ARM was huge (based on the Standard I shipboard SAM) and the AGM-45 Shrike was both big and utter poo poo. Normally you'd need rather beefy hardpoints for these missiles as even the smaller Shrike was still comparable in size and weight to an AIM-7 Sparrow. So, they took an outmoded AIM-9C, a failed SA radar homing variant developed for the F-8 Crusader, and changed the seeker head to one that could home in on electromagnetic emissions. The warhead didn't have to be very big, just powerful enough to destroy the offending radar antenna. The only problem is, the missile's short range brought aircraft hazardously close to the launchers it was designed to attack, and the supply of AIM-9C missiles was finite. Combat doctrine moved away from the idea of throwing the AGM-122 on everything and towards multirole platforms that could carry the new AGM-88 HARM, which had a vastly improved seeker relative to previous designs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Pretty sure North Korea has only been the real enemy once and that was in Ghost Recon 2. I mean they weren't even the real baddies in Chaos Theory, just unwitting pawns. In the first GRAW (and the first mission of HAWX, for that matter) aren't you fighting Mexico?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Chopper: Do you love this song? V [HATE SONGS] Thunderhead: Razgriz 1, Pickle. Shack on the target. Chopper: Aww man, my rock and roll records! It took me forever to collect all those!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:They were still Wardog at that point, turn in your ace combat fan card. Yeah but that's something the edgy black warplanes would do, torch your top 40 fake rock.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Crow, I don’t know if you’ve already finished recording all the missions, or how the Ace Combat flight model handles energy conservation, but you might want to consider not turning in the same plane (geometrically, not aircraft) as your targets. Guys keep escaping from you because putting your crosshair on the other plane results in closure, increasing aspect, and you getting spit out of the turn. Try a displacement roll, where you accept overshoot and while maneuvering out of their plane in order to let them get ahead of you without losing speed. The lock-on camera should make this easy. This works well. But probably the most basic thing to do that works in any Ace Combat game is the arcadey equivalent of energy management: min/maxing your throttle inputs. What do I mean by this? I mean, rarely leave your throttle at "cruise" or neutral input. There's no fuel to think about and you're actually being timed so this is beneficial both for basic combat and S-ranking a mission. The planes in this game have a pretty simple flight model that looks like the graph below. Punch your afterburner any time you aren't maneuvering, so that you enter an engagement with maximum energy on your first pass. The AI in this game begins to position itself for a shot or go defensive once you enter a certain radius around it. Until then, they fly pretty slow and in straight lines or gentle banking turns. If your closing speed is extremely high, they have no time to react to a missile shot and you'll basically get a free kill. If you're good, you can line up a missile kill and a gun kill simultaneously on his wingman (1st person view highly recommended, 3rd person view is pretty but twitchy, and makes gun runs very difficult). For formations of 3 or more aircraft you can even shoot a brace of SP weapons as you close and bag a third or fourth kill for virtually no extra effort. Then, you have two options. If you have to turn towards the fight, jam your speed brakes. Your turn radius will tighten up quickly once you drop below your cruising airspeed, and allow you to get back inside for another pass. Pay attention to your speed and attitude, do not stall out! It's easy to sense an oncoming stall through the force feedback in your controller, assuming you have that feature. Otherwise, you can "boom and zoom" and use your huge energy advantage to leave that engagement bubble again. The AI won't follow you if you gain enough distance and they won't follow you at an aircraft's full speed, but they will continue on the same heading that they "forgot" you at for some time. You can cheese the enemy by looping back and hitting them at full speed in a head-on pass. They will virtually never have time to lock on and your missiles will almost always hit, especially SP Weapons like SAAM or XMAA. Unless you're flying late-game aircraft that turn on a dime, it's much more efficient to "read the tide of battle  " and take out each enemy formation using a mixture of high speed passes and airbrake turns.In AC6, they added the gameplay element of the "high-g turn" which basically gives you a spurt of your maximum maneuverability if you mash airbrake and throttle together, at the expense of almost all your forward momentum. Really great for this tactic because the further you were from stall speed, the longer you could hold that turn. But in previous games in the series, it required a more nuanced use of throttle.  edit: Refined my explanation a bit and added a visual aid. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Like I said, it's pretty arcadey. The basic thing to remember is that there's a sweet spot where you turn in a tighter circle than you otherwise would. Other than that, you have a maximum speed, a stall speed, and somewhere in the middle, a cruising speed, and this is all arbitrarily dependent on which aircraft you're flying much more so than other traditional factors like drag coefficient, attitude and altitude. Your plane will deploy air brakes, flaps, spoilers, etc. in a realistic looking manner but it's just a visually appealing way of indicating "I AM DECELERATING." Ascending and descending have a barely noticeable effect on your ability to accelerate and decelerate; the throttle position is the primary factor. The only atmospheric affect you'll ever encounter that isn't cosmetic is hitting your operational ceiling, which just causes your aircraft to stall. So overall, the FM about as arcade as it gets without being a rail shooter. But that's not to say it isn't fun, because once you get good you can pull off some insane, cool looking poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:17
|
|
Well, that certainly is different. IRL, turn radius is often secondary to turn rate. Also, I guess the Ace Combat flight model doesn't really do potential energy?
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Neat. Well, basic lead-lag maneuvers should still work. No, there's statistical values that determine how "maneuverable" an aircraft is. The exact values are buried, but abstractly represented on the aircraft select screen in the pentagon chart; the attributes they describe are rather vague. In this case, we want to look at "Mobility," "Speed," "Stability." Mobility is basically how tightly an aircraft can pitch, the roll rate, and how aggressively it can yaw (yes, you can yaw in this game, but other than crabbing your gunfire into stuff it's not as useful as on a real aircraft). Speed is indicative of both maximum speed AND acceleration. Aircraft with high speed and low mobility generally handle like loving bricks, while aircraft with high scores in both can usually break the game wide open since only the cheating Ace AI can fully utilize such agility and then some. Stability is how "floaty" the aircraft feels while maneuvering. Unstable aircraft respond to inputs slower and therefore aren't as good for gunnery or evading surprise attacks by terra firma I'm pretty sure stability also influences stall speed. Generally, these scores are rather vague and you're best off just flying whatever you like the feel of. For instance, I like the challenge of a suboptimal airframe, so I'll often pick the worst aircraft that has the SP Weapon I want. In AC Zero a lot of times I'll just do an F-15 run because the Eagle is just really fun to fly and has everything you need to beat any mission in the game. But sometimes I like to fly the really broken planes and speedrun a mission, it depends much more on my mood than "can plane X out-turn plane Y?"On the subject of air combat maneuvers, there are effective dogfighting tactics, but they're limited in complexity and usefulness since energy as a physical concept in these games is incredibly basic and you end up not needing to think ahead as much. There's no such thing as bleeding energy from the defender, you can't do a Thatch Weave with Pixy. Ace AI will present a challenge because they have extra maneuvers in their repertoire. They can scissor with you, they can jink and snap roll to spoil your missiles, and some can Cobra to get behind you (Yellow 13 and his wingmen in AC04 abuse the hell out of this). But at the end of the day, the basic game plan on offense is modulate throttle to turn inside the enemy (Yo-Yo's do help a lot though, changing the angle is the best way to end stalemates or driving a sled because the AI will often break off and give up his tail) or use raw speed to ambush and escape. And, all you need to do on defense is maintain enough energy to make hard turns. Every enemy A2A missile can maneuver through only 45 degrees before it loses lock. You can break 95% of missile locks just by turning hard and making it chase you. This works whether the shot is from far away or right on your rear end. In fact, the most dangerous missiles are from head-on, which is why you don't engage head-on unless you are really truckin', so they have no time to lock you. You can make the game as challenging or as easy as you want by how strictly you adhere to these principles, since the AI has very little defense against any of that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:One other thing I noticed during the Indigo* fight, Crow, is that you seem to fall prey to target-fixation quite a bit - concentrating on one target who's got you spinning around in circles while all his buddies start lining up shots on you. It may be worthwhile, when you're finding yourself outmaneuvered by a baddie, to see if you have a better, more reliable shot at his wingman instead of trying to chase him down. This is very good advice. The enemy Ace pilots do try to swarm you, but this is exploitable if you do exactly that. While you're being chased by a couple of enemies, there's almost always one who is breaking off their attack or extending for a better angle. You can usually break off on one of these guys and get a missile lock before anyone else shoots you. This is an essential tactic on Ace mode because virtually everything that hits you will kill you, but it's also good for ending fights sooner on any difficulty, especially if you cannot outrun or out-turn the enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
All I remember from my model building days as a kid is to use a fine-grit nail file to score the edges you are gluing together for better adheshion (don't use too much glue either because you'll make a mess and leave gooey gaps in the seams) and to REALLY read the directions carefully because I would always do something out of order and screw things up. Take your time and have fun, model building is a great hobby Now then, as for the mission videos, how come you didn't buy LASMs for Operation Round Hammer? That's the perfect time to demonstrate how good the anti-ship missiles actually are at killing naval targets. edit: You can also use LASMs against ground targets in this game to decent effect. They aren't the best A2G weapons... The UGB, RCL and FAEB all beat it for damage output, and the XAGM can home in on more targets simultaneously, but they do lock on from a significant distance and offer a moderate splash damage. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
^^^ Padlock is very disorienting to me too. If a target is off screen the HUD will have a green arrow pointing the way to it. Generally I put that at 12 O'Clock and pull up towards it, controlling the camera manually with the right stick. Some notes: -The mission name Operation Varsity is an homage to a real operation from WWII of the same name,, one of the largest paratrooper deployments in history. -I think you guys were thinking of the QAAM as the "heat seeking, fire and forget gently caress you missile." The SAAM you had selected is the same beam-rider we've been using on the Draken, although the model depicted is now a Soviet Vympel R-27, NATO codename AA-10 Alamo.
The Casualty fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
biosterous posted:
Great, now I want a sandwich. The MiG-29 is definitely more of a response to the F-16 than the F-15. It was developed roughly in parallel with the USAF's Lightweight Fighter Project and entered service only a few years after the F-16. They match up pretty evenly in a fight, although the F-16 has the advantage of a longer range, wider variety of payloads, and superior avionics and upgrades. But the MiG-29K is carrier capable, and the F-16 can't do that  The Su-27 line, meanwhile, was definitely designed to combat the F-15. Like the Eagle, it's a heavy fighter, with high thrust/weight ratio, powerful sensors, and a large payload of A2A missiles.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Skwerl posted:Sup AC kit buddy.....this guy arrived too and I dont know poo poo about miniature building either... You can get the cement off with acetone and a cotton swab, don't trip. Nice Yellow 13, I've always liked the Su-37's mean look. The canards and large exposed engine nacelles really look awesome. Veloxyll posted:I was so confused watching episode 4 when someone said that you'd be worried/in trouble if F-35s showed up. They've always been rather OP in Ace Combat games, I fear its for that exact reason. They're going off LockMart's data sheet and advertisements instead of real world performance. Then again, their F-22's don't kill you randomly with oxygen failures either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Skwerl posted:Sorry if you guys have issues with me derailing this thread into ACZ: The Modeling Thread Yeah, looks about right. Now if only scale models leaked fuel, oil and hydraulic fluid into to-scale drip pans...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Looks nice, pretty accurate weathering for a bird on deployment. It's pretty remarkable how dirty tactical aircraft start to look even though you're washing them thoroughly every 3-12 days depending on what you're doing... A fresh paint job only holds up its pure grey hue for maybe a month or two and they're back to being stained with fluids and grime from every seam and port, not to mention boot prints all over the dorsal fuselage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
GhostStalker posted:lol, that'll teach me to trust a game to get it right... Some of the aircraft modeled in AC have used the AGM-88 HARM as an LAGM, such as the F-4G Wild Weasel in AC5. The Russian Kh-31P is the equivalent for eastern-bloc aircraft in the series. The LAGM doesn't function like an anti-radiation missile, instead it's basically long-range A2G missile with a large but weak blast radius, ideal for destroying ground convoys, AA clusters, or clumps of static light structures. You can technically use the LASM for the same thing but it delivers concentrated damage in a smaller blast. In fact, the two missiles get consolidated in later games since they're pretty redundant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The mission name is SEAD (SUppress Enemy Air Defenses). Wild Weasel is any aircraft specially equipped for the role or fighter squadrons with this as their specialty. The F4-G was the second and last US aircraft model specifically converted for the role (Previously, it was attempted to use standard F-105 and F-4 aircraft, these proved to be inadequate. First the F-105, and then the F-4, were specially upgraded with advanced threat warning receivers, interfaces for ARMS, and better ECM. After the F-4G was retired, standard F-16Cs became the default type, and the mission will transfer to the F-35 if that ever produces a usable fighter), although the Germans and Italians operate a dedicate Tornado variant. It might be a bit of a stretch to go all the way back to Sabers since that's 1950's tech in a 1990's world, but it would have been nice to see some late Century Series jets. I think an F-106 would fit right in, as would an F-104 (maximum hilarity if it's an Attacker). I've always thought an F-8 would make a fine addition to the game, as well as the A-4 and the EE Lightning. Ultimately they went with the selection they did because a lot of the assets could be recycled. edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again, AC should have a "Legends" style game with some old school Korea-Vietnam era selections. You could even break it into mini-campaigns that cover smaller wars with more coherent aircraft selections, since the performance envelopes would be seeing some rather extreme progression through those decades. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
The only time Gelb ever killed me was because Gelb 1 did a Cobra right into my aircraft. Even on Ace mode, where you die in 1 hit and they constantly poo poo rear-firing missiles, they're trivial compared to other "boss fight" squadrons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
radintorov posted:I will say that the concept of the F-35B is not a bad one, since the one organic fixed-wing asset the USMC has is the Harrier and the Lightning II would be more capable in theory just thanks to the improved avionics, not to mention that it would allow other nations with navies that operate the Harrier to have a more advanced plane to use. And since it is a copy of the russian Yak-141, VTOL was always a factor. They have more Hornets than Harriers at this point. Your average Carrier Air Wing (CVW) operates with an embedded USMC squadron specifically trained to perform CAS missions for Marines (although every Hornet aviator is trained in the same pipeline, therefore they all know how to perform CAS for whoever calls it in). VTOL attack aircraft are a pretty dumb aeronautical rabbit hole to fall down if you ask me, especially since the warfare doctrine of the US Military would never allow for an amphibious landing force to be engaged independently from one or more carrier strike groups. If you ask me, had the Marines simply asked for, say, a mix of F-35A modified to take off from improvised/ expeditionary airstrips (think roads or damaged airfields), and F-35C to replace their existing stocks of Hornets, the Lightning program would have ended up with a far superior aircraft instead of an international laughing stock. Great, now I'm imagining an F-35 with stealth drag chute, stealth mud guards, and stealth intake screens.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
The Legend of TF-15A USAF S/N 71-0290, NASA Tail No. 837 In the mid-80's, NASA requested an F-15 to be loaned from the Air Force for use as a flying testbed. It's always been common for older aircraft which had outlived their usefulness to be adapted for research, and in this case, the USAF sent NASA the oldest Eagle in its inventory, 71-0290. 0290 was the sixth F-15 off the McDonnell Douglas (McDD) assembly line in 1971, built as a pre-production TF-15A trainer. These aircraft would later reach full production as the F-15B.  Pretty sure this sexy paint job is also in an Ace Combat game. 0290 was stationed at Edwards AFB in California, from 1973 to 1983, where it was co-operated by McDD and the Air Force as a test platform. Then, in 1984, McDD was awarded a contract for a demonstration aircraft that could perform unassisted short takeoffs and landings from cratered runways, in all weather conditions. So began the "Agile Eagle" program. 0290 was pulled from the active inventory and underwent major modifications. Movable canards -which were actually modified horizontal stabilizers from an F/A-18A Hornet- were fitted outboard of the intake nozzles. The avionics were upgraded to a four-channel FBW system with semi-automated engine management and partial digital glass cockpit, similar to that of the new F-15E Strike Eagles. The APG-70 radar was equipped with an experimental high-res ground-mapping mode which was complemented with an AN/AAQ-13 LANTIRN Navigational FLIR pod. So extensive were the modifications that the aircraft was redesignated NF-15B, meaning it would not be expected to ever return to its former configuration. This aircraft flew successfully for some time, but phase two of the program added new Pratt&Whitney F-100-229 engines with titanium honeycomb, actuated paddles capable of vectoring the exhaust gases to increase maneuverability, a technology which until then had only been conceptualized. The aircraft was handed over to NASA for testing in 1989, with a new tail number, N837NA. Thus began the F-15S/MTD (Stall and Maneuver Technology Demonstrator) a NASA/USAF joint project designed to demonstrate and test new technology for future projects. The advanced thrust vectoring nozzes operated in two dimensions, controlling pitch and roll only, since they could only move up and down. Vanes could also be opened to vector thrust forwards. The system decreased combat takeoff roll by 25% (although when clean, the aircraft could take off in a staggering 1700 feet, compared to 7500 feet for a stock F-15), reduced the landing roll to a mere 1600 feet, and also reduced the stall speed to an incredible 42 mph. It also meant the aircraft would have theoretically been supremely dangerous in a dogfight, because of its ability to rapidly decelerate and hold extreme angles of attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0RbanvcPmI New for 1988! She'll be killing Commies in no time, right? F-15ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles) was a tech refresh of the F-15S/MTD. In the mid-90's, P&W developed an improved 3d thrust vectoring system and upgraded flight control system. The new nozzles were round, like a conventional Eagle's, but could be tilted both up and down, and side to side, giving it vectored thrust along the yaw axis and opening the door to even greater agility. These nozzles were also designed to be operated in the supersonic flight envelope, which was previously impossible with the old paddle nozzles.  Note the round nozzles. The program was not done yet, though, and from 2003-2008 a new form of FCS, the learning neural network, was installed, and the aircraft was dubbed the F-15IFCS (Intelligent Flight Control System). The nature of this program was to develop self-learning computers which could perform real-time damage analysis and adapt the flight characteristics to better suit the aircraft's new reality. In other words, if a missile blasted a chunk of the tailplane off, or an engine lost oil pressure and stopped working, the computer could recognize that and adjust its inputs to keep the craft flying as long as physically possible. The program was concluded in 2008. The aircraft was included in the "Quiet Spike" supersonic shockwave reduction tests, as a chase plane and sensor platform, although a different aircraft was modified with the experiment itself. Basically, this long spike would pierce the air ahead of the aircraft, creating a smaller area of air resistance and greatly diminishing the magnitude of the "sonic boom" that plagues supersonic aircraft. Developing technology such as this is the only way that supersonic aircraft can safely operate over highly populated areas, as the vibrations have been known to shatter glass and cause disorientation/ ear injuries to people on the ground.  Pinocchio jokes! Silent Eagle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn6nx_GGERQ Ooh, some HAWX 3 footage! In 2009, McDD began to independently work on an upgrade package for the F-15 fleet, to bring it up to 21st Century standards. Aimed at the export market, these upgrades include reductions to its radar cross-section through absorbent materials and coatings, full glass cockpit with state-of-the-art avionics, conformal weapons bays, and canted tailplanes. At a cost of $100 million, it's competitive with other 5th generation fighters. However, it, like other designs, has fallen victim to the cabal that is pushing the F-35 on our allies. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea all showed great interest in the program but ended up selecting the Lightning II in the end. The Wikipedia article doesn't make this process sound suspicious at all, no sir. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Poe Dameron is the true Demon Lord of this thread, now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:I feel really bad now, I've been working up stuff on doing an Ace Combat series (and challenge) LP myself for the past few months, doing writeups on history, planes, etc, but here I find you beat me to it. Dammit NGC. I suppose it's really up to the OP, but it couldn't hurt to contribute your writeups to the thread, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
ElTipejoLoco posted:I forget if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but wasn't one of the Ridge Racer titles supposedly officially set in Strangereal? Was that just a silly joke, or was there something actually behind that claim? I recall one of the Japanese sub-sites for Ace Combat listing Ridge Racer underneath it's "world" link but I can no longer locate said page. The girl from Ridge Racer is a canon sister of Kei "Edge" Nagase from AC5, if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
That poo poo is loving ridiculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, when you're a crew chief (or in my case, a Plane Captain, hooyah go navy) having your name on the side of an aircraft makes your chest swell with pride. But getting turned into a 5' tall anime on the side of an otherwise serious-business attack chopper is just so Japanese that I can't even comprehend it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
I don't know if you noticed, but the reason your guns weren't doing any damage was because you were firing them from too far away and then stopping before you actually got into gun range. If you don't see a pipper (the HUD gunsight), you're too far away. The bullets will just disappear. The end would also have gone faster if you'd brought ground attack SP weapons. Buy the MiG-29's rocket pods you cheapskate  edit: I should add, each gun bullet is I think 1/10th the power of a missile, but against static defenses that adds up very quickly. It would have saved you a couple passes for sure. In my experience the gun is actually better for ground attack than dogfighting until you become very good at using it (flying in first person is a huge help for improving accuracy). The Casualty fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Kadorhal posted:I think guns actually have better range than the HUD suggests. I know in Infinity you can hit targets from just a tiny bit farther than your missiles will lock on from even without a part to give them better range; I've stolen a few low-priority kills by blazing away with the gun instead of firing a missile and hoping I have a better propulsion-enhancing part than he does. I won't be surprised if the range is shorter in the PS2 games, but since 5 pretty much every game gives you infinite ammo for the gun below Normal difficulty so you won't be wasting much more than a few seconds of time trying to determine the actual range. Rocket pods aren't my favorite except for the OP variety in 6, but nine-gear crow can't hit the broad side of a barn with UGBs so they're the superior choice
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Great to listen to but not that great to watch. It's a Japanese video game so whether you're using live action or rendered cutscenes you gotta expect a modicum of scenery-chewing.  nine-gear crow, I know you like QAAMs a lot, but give the XMAAs a shot next time. In my experience you get way more bang for your buck in almost all circumstances. The XMAA not only has about triple the range of a standard missile, it's one-hit kill and more accurate, to boot. You can even use them at standard missile range, although at that distance they'll miss just as often as the standard ones do (unlike the XLAA, which is almost worthless inside of 5,000 feet). They're pretty much the best all-around missile in the game especially since you can volley off four of them at a time. Against a group like Schwarze you can pretty reliably take out three planes before they even attack you. Honestly when I get the Eagle I usually don't even bother buying them, I'll get the bombs first and use the XMAA for any dogfight mission.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Materant posted:Zero, for me at least, is where Ace difficulty actually becomes fun. Yep, and like Kadorhal said, it's hard to go back to anything less. It punishes mistakes and makes you feel like a true badass when you pull some crazy poo poo off. For those who haven't played, Ace Mode boosts the power of enemy ordinance enough so that a single missile will kill you. AA guns become a little more accurate and do massive damage (getting too close to one is a good way to spend the rest of your flight at 99% damage). Enemy aircraft that do get on your tail take less time to lock on and fire missiles more often (so much so that in those boss battles or big furballs your HUD is usually red almost constantly). You also get some extra aces in a lot of missions. All in all it's really fun once you're good enough at the game, but until Ace Combat 6, these games had no checkpoint system, so these PS2-era games get quite unforgiving. Make one mistake near the end and you might be flying a whole mission over again instead of only getting pushed back a couple minutes. Still, I wouldn't have it any other way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Kadorhal posted:I'm gonna have to agree with Aces here, the F-5E is actually pretty sweet. They're so cool to see in real life. We used to see them flying aggressor missions against our Hornets. The role suits them, they look hard as gently caress with their sharklike lines and the Soviet paint jobs. Even the wide stance of their undercarriage lends the impression that they're hot rods. They're so tiny too, compared to the 4th generation on. Each engine could probably fit in the bed of a pickup truck, and our Super Hornets simply dwarfed them in every dimension.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:I have, my current favorite thing is concurrent development applied to building aircraft carriers with the electropult not really working reliably and the arrestor system's not-a-cable parts also being unreliable. And changing them to traditional systems would involve reworking the hangar layout underneath the deck. If the Gerald Ford's new systems don't work as intended, there's no turning back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Honestly, the Ford's greatest sin is its dumb loving name. The pride of the United States Navy, the centerpiece of its fleets, and the single largest symbol of America's staggering wealth and overwhelming military might for the next half-century.... named after a guy who was President for two years and is mostly remembered for falling down a lot. Why, oh why, couldn't they have named the first ship the Enterprise? It's not an entirely dumb name if you consider that Gerald Ford was also a decorated Navy veteran of WWII... Even if one of his defining moments was almost falling off his destroyer during "Halsey's Typhoon" in 1944  . Most of the other Presidents who have ships named after them were in the Navy at one point or another, and the ones who weren't still measurably contributed to the Naval Service through their policies as politicians. And what I meant when I said there isn't any turning back w.r.t. the Ford-class is that the EMC and advanced arresting gear are so interwoven into the ship's design that a retrofit is impossible, or at the very best, financially ruinous. I do believe the technology will eventually be perfected, but there's no way they'd be able to, say, scrap it all and go back to steam if the design challenges become insurmountable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Or they're just that badass, like Washington or Lincoln. Honestly, I don't mind Ford as the name for an individual carrier (although I agree with a previous poster that naming them after people is silly to begin with, if you ask me they ought to switch naming rules with submarines) I just dislike that they named the first one the Ford because it's now the Gerald R. Ford-class. Enterprise-class would have been way better. True. Then again, it could end up as a single ship of its class if the next one off the line requires radical changes to improve the deficient systems. Kinda like how the Kennedy formed a one-ship subclass as an interim design between the Kitty Hawks and the Nimitzes. Or the Enterprise itself, for that matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
I've never really felt like picking targets in any of these games is particularly painful. But, like Aces, I've played 5, 0, and 6 the most by far. I was a serial renter of 4 and beat it multiple times, but I never owned it. The other ones I bought and played religiously. Which reminds me, Ace Combat has been oft-imitated but never bettered. How many of you remember Air Force Delta, for the Dreamcast?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 19:09
|
|