quote:

---

> I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>
> http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>
>

quote:

---

> Nice bit of engineering, though.

quote:

---

>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>
>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>

quote:

---

> Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having
> several
> design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
> burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know
> about the
> Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after
> 9/11. The
> NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any
> mention of
> possible delamination problems.
>
> Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
> Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
> delamination.
>
> Some links
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
> What you dont want to see when you land.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
> Money quote from the observer article...
> The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
> Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this
> meant
> months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed
> to
> pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European
> manufacturer
> in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about
> 587,
> he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid
> extra
> to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how
> con
> vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these
> aircraft.'
>
> http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
> Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus
> and
> exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards
> composite
> inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I
> am not
> flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
> PAPADOC
>

Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.

They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!


[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

quote:

---

> In article <d4odmi$cgb$1@ikaria.belnet.be>, MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com
> (Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely, looks far more elegant in motion than it did on the drawing
> board.
>
> I agree about the cattle truck thing as well. I've never had any
> inclination to travel in a tube stuffed with cheap tourists. No doubt my
> environmental karma is all the better for it. Which is a good thing,
> because if I ever save up enough for a flight in a Russian Su-27 I'll blow
> an awful lot of pollution brownie points.

quote:

---

>
> Andrew McP

quote:

---

>Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
>design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
>burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
>Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
>NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
>possible delamination problems.
>
>Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
>Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
>delamination.
>
>Some links
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
>What you dont want to see when you land.
>http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
>Money quote from the observer article...
>The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
>Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
>months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
>pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
>in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
>he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
>to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
>vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'
>
>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
>Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
>exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
>inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
>flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
>PAPADOC

quote:

---

>Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
>design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
>burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
>Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
>NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
>possible delamination problems.
>
>Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
>Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
>delamination.
>
>Some links
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
>What you dont want to see when you land.
>http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
>Money quote from the observer article...
>The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
>Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
>months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
>pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
>in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
>he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
>to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
>vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'
>
>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
>Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
>exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
>inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
>flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
>PAPADOC
>
>
>My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
>www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

quote:

---

> Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having
> several
> design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
> burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know
> about the
> Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after
> 9/11. The
> NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any
> mention of
> possible delamination problems.
>
> Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
> Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
> delamination.
>
> Some links
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
> What you dont want to see when you land.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
> Money quote from the observer article...
> The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
> Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this
> meant
> months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed
> to
> pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European
> manufacturer
> in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about
> 587,
> he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid
> extra
> to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how
> con
> vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these
> aircraft.'
>
> http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
> Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus
> and
> exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards
> composite
> inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I
> am not
> flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
> PAPADOC
>
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

quote:

---

>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>
>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>

quote:

---

> Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having
> several
> design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
> burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know
> about the
> Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after
> 9/11. The
> NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any
> mention of
> possible delamination problems.
>
> Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
> Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
> delamination.
>
> Some links
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
> What you dont want to see when you land.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
> Money quote from the observer article...
> The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
> Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this
> meant
> months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed
> to
> pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European
> manufacturer
> in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about
> 587,
> he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid
> extra
> to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how
> con
> vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these
> aircraft.'
>
> http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
> Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus
> and
> exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards
> composite
> inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I
> am not
> flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
> PAPADOC
>

Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.

They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!


[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

quote:

---

>Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
>design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
>burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
>Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
>NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
>possible delamination problems.
>
>Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
>Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
>delamination.
>
>Some links
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1436374,00.html
>
>What you dont want to see when you land.
>http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
>Money quote from the observer article...
>The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
>Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
>months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
>pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
>in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
>he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
>to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
>vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'
>
>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/20...king-at-airbus/
>
>Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
>exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
>inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
>flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
>PAPADOC

quote:

---

> Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
> build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
> certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
> bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
> described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.
>
> They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!

quote:

---

>
>Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
>then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
>pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
>Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
>other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
>about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
>Papa, I need your recipe! :-)
>
>Kind regards...

quote:

---

>Jansen do you not know how to spell dumb XXXXs or are you trying to be polite?
>
>Just curious cause seems pretty silly to call someone a dumb XXXX spelling it
>"dumb f**ks".

quote:

---

> (...)
> Airbus that allows its composite tail to fall off. Exactly how are they gonna
> fix that? Remove all the Vertical Stabs? Maybe they can go to a tailess design?

quote:

---

> And in the spirit of brotherly love let me put a smiley face at the end so you
> know how much I love you.
> :-)
> There now all those mean things I said are all better eh?
> PAPADOC

quote:

---

>
>I suspect you will like this tail design better (see Fig. 4):
>
>http://tinyurl.com/dvnxd [airbus.com]
>
>
>All this brotherly love has to be rewarded:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/c2mtf [airbus.com]
>
>Time to sharpen up those pink crayons !
>
>;)
>Mr. S.

quote:

---

> Does any plane aside from the Su-25 get the improved
> physics? Doesn't look like it.

quote:

---

> Is there any hope of any other planes getting the
> improved physics?

quote:

---

> In article <5b0f71htk0u01tm0hvtod24t2o75qqluk2@4ax.com>,
> PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
>
>
> Things have definitely been tweaked. Flying the 27 you now get a lot
> more control at the edges of the flight envelope, and the kobra is
> certainly less scripted. If you fly along at 450, press k, then pull
> back the stick you can actually abort the kobra if you're quick enough.
> You also get control back (it seems) much more quickly ie the aircraft
> starts to respond again realistically when AOA drops to within more
> normal parameters.
>
> Can't talk for the other aircraft because between the excellent (if
> somewhat frustrating at times) weapons platform that is the 25T, and the
> superb flying machine that is the 27 I don't have time for anything else.
>
>
> It's *very* time consuming and tricky work apparently, and not really in
> ED's financial interests to work too hard on it from what I've read.
> Maybe it'll be on the cards for what sounds like a total rewrite after
> 1.2. Either way it's a long wait.
>
> Andrew McP

quote:

---

>
>
>Hey, PD ... calm *down*! <g>. He's just trying not to offend our
>sensibilities! Of course he can spell - probably better than most!
>
>If this is the same Bas that I met at a Flanker meet - then, believe
>me, he knows his stuff (he's [cough] in the business)..
>
>I think he was trying to point out that Airbus isn't the only company
>at fault - as some posts here were implying they're far worse than
>others.
>
>Admaski.

quote:

---

> leadfoot wrote:
>
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and then
> in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the pilots
> from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more Boeing
> arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the other brands
> of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?) about something
> you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone? Papa, I need your
> recipe! :-)

quote:

---

>
> Kind regards...

quote:

---

> Anyways on to your post. Well ok lets grant that the Boeing has a problem.
> Great. Does the Airbus now NOT have a problem?

quote:

---

> You cannot see delaminations, until they XXXXing thing is
> separating. So unless you are sitting back there on the tail when it departs the
> vertical stab you wont see the rudder's delaminations. Feel better now?

quote:

---

> Do you feel comfortable flying a composite jet when that manufactor
> has recommended visual inspections that are next to useless.

quote:

---

>My apologies for being a bit uncivilised in my first post. Now, lets
>clarify things a little...
>
>
>PAPADOC wrote:
>
>I never argued that Airbus doesn't have any problems with their product.
>However, show me one maintenance directive or procedure where Airbus
>recommends to check a composite structure by visual inspection alone -in
>case there was any doubt about said part's structural integrity-. I bet
>you can't...

quote:

---

>One of the most important recommendations made by the FAA was to spend
>more time training the crew in applying rudder correctly. This was the
>primary cause for the "NY airbus crash". Airbus was freed of all
>blame... by your FAA I might add... I'm sure you conspiracy theorists
>will have a field-day over this one :-)

quote:

---

>
>Fact of the matter is that composites are here to stay and will
>increasingly find their way into every every nook and cranny. It's not a
>matter of feeling better or worse... it just is.

quote:

---

>
>The Boeing 787 fuselage and parts of the wing and tail are almost
>entirely made of composites. Boeing's spin on this is that it will
>increase the safe-life, thereby reducing cost whilst simplifying daily
>maintenance checks. I'm sure you're okay with hitching a ride on one of
>those in a few years. Why? Because it says "Boeing" on the sticker?
>regards.

quote:

---

> And to think, all the effort made doing these, releasing
> add-ons, etc., but they don't have the time to make a
> dynamic campaign........hmmm.

quote:

---

> In article <DZRde.163$Q15.1824@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com (JP)
> wrote:
>
>
> It's always been a hope that ED would manage to squeeze something in, but
> experience shows (a) ED have struggled to meet their own expectations let
> alone ours, and (b) sims have to be built around dynamic game engines, not
> the other way around. Both the F4 and EECH engines seem to have the
> campaign at their core, with the simulated aircraft added on top. With ED
> (and the vast majority of other sims, historically speaking) it's usually
> appeared to be a case of "ok, we've modelled this great aircraft and some
> landscape, what do we do with it now?"
>
> Maybe the sequel to LOMAC (if it happens) will learn this lesson. Maybe it
> won't. In the mean time I'm enjoying 1.1 for what it is. The 25T really
> does push flight modelling in a military sim to new (and very
> challenging!) heights. And visually the much higher poly count on the new
> aircraft is stunning. The new weapons systems are both complex (sometimes
> frustratingly realistic!) and satisfying to use when you get it right. And
> while the AI and gameplay is as disappointing as ever, when you lose
> yourself in the challenge of tackling a particular problem, it's possible
> to lose yourself in the moment.
>
> And there is one user-made dynamic campaign out in alpha form. I haven't
> explored it yet, because I'm too busy movie making, pylon racing, and
> learning the 25T. But it looks promising.
>
> http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/boar...hp?a=topic&t=63
>
> Andrew McP

quote:

---

> (...)
> Airbus that allows its composite tail to fall off. Exactly how are they gonna
> fix that? Remove all the Vertical Stabs? Maybe they can go to a tailess design?

quote:

---

> And in the spirit of brotherly love let me put a smiley face at the end so you
> know how much I love you.
> :-)
> There now all those mean things I said are all better eh?
> PAPADOC

quote:

---

> Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
> build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
> certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
> bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
> described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.
>
> They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!

quote:

---

> Does any plane aside from the Su-25 get the improved
> physics? Doesn't look like it.

quote:

---

> Is there any hope of any other planes getting the
> improved physics?

quote:

---

>
>Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
>then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
>pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
>Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
>other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
>about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
>Papa, I need your recipe! :-)
>
>Kind regards...

quote:

---

>Jansen do you not know how to spell dumb XXXXs or are you trying to be polite?
>
>Just curious cause seems pretty silly to call someone a dumb XXXX spelling it
>"dumb f**ks".

quote:

---

>
>I suspect you will like this tail design better (see Fig. 4):
>
>http://tinyurl.com/dvnxd [airbus.com]
>
>
>All this brotherly love has to be rewarded:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/c2mtf [airbus.com]
>
>Time to sharpen up those pink crayons !
>
>;)
>Mr. S.

quote:

---

>
>
>Hey, PD ... calm *down*! <g>. He's just trying not to offend our
>sensibilities! Of course he can spell - probably better than most!
>
>If this is the same Bas that I met at a Flanker meet - then, believe
>me, he knows his stuff (he's [cough] in the business)..
>
>I think he was trying to point out that Airbus isn't the only company
>at fault - as some posts here were implying they're far worse than
>others.
>
>Admaski.

quote:

---

> Anyways on to your post. Well ok lets grant that the Boeing has a problem.
> Great. Does the Airbus now NOT have a problem?

quote:

---

> You cannot see delaminations, until they XXXXing thing is
> separating. So unless you are sitting back there on the tail when it departs the
> vertical stab you wont see the rudder's delaminations. Feel better now?

quote:

---

> Do you feel comfortable flying a composite jet when that manufactor
> has recommended visual inspections that are next to useless.

quote:

---

> leadfoot wrote:
>
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and then
> in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the pilots
> from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more Boeing
> arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the other brands
> of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?) about something
> you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone? Papa, I need your
> recipe! :-)

quote:

---

>
> Kind regards...

quote:

---

> In article <5b0f71htk0u01tm0hvtod24t2o75qqluk2@4ax.com>,
> PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
>
>
> Things have definitely been tweaked. Flying the 27 you now get a lot
> more control at the edges of the flight envelope, and the kobra is
> certainly less scripted. If you fly along at 450, press k, then pull
> back the stick you can actually abort the kobra if you're quick enough.
> You also get control back (it seems) much more quickly ie the aircraft
> starts to respond again realistically when AOA drops to within more
> normal parameters.
>
> Can't talk for the other aircraft because between the excellent (if
> somewhat frustrating at times) weapons platform that is the 25T, and the
> superb flying machine that is the 27 I don't have time for anything else.
>
>
> It's *very* time consuming and tricky work apparently, and not really in
> ED's financial interests to work too hard on it from what I've read.
> Maybe it'll be on the cards for what sounds like a total rewrite after
> 1.2. Either way it's a long wait.
>
> Andrew McP

quote:

---

> And to think, all the effort made doing these, releasing
> add-ons, etc., but they don't have the time to make a
> dynamic campaign........hmmm.

quote:

---

> And to think, all the effort made doing these, releasing
> add-ons, etc., but they don't have the time to make a
> dynamic campaign........hmmm.

quote:

---

> leadfoot wrote:
>
>
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
> then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
> pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
> Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
> other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
> about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
> Papa, I need your recipe! :-)
>
> Kind regards...

quote:

---

>Doesnt matter. Americans generally dislike the French.

quote:

---

> leadfoot wrote:
>
>
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
> then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
> pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
> Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
> other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
> about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
> Papa, I need your recipe! :-)
>
> Kind regards...

quote:

---

> In article <DZRde.163$Q15.1824@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com (JP)
> wrote:
>
>
> It's always been a hope that ED would manage to squeeze something in, but
> experience shows (a) ED have struggled to meet their own expectations let
> alone ours, and (b) sims have to be built around dynamic game engines, not
> the other way around. Both the F4 and EECH engines seem to have the
> campaign at their core, with the simulated aircraft added on top. With ED
> (and the vast majority of other sims, historically speaking) it's usually
> appeared to be a case of "ok, we've modelled this great aircraft and some
> landscape, what do we do with it now?"
>
> Maybe the sequel to LOMAC (if it happens) will learn this lesson. Maybe it
> won't. In the mean time I'm enjoying 1.1 for what it is. The 25T really
> does push flight modelling in a military sim to new (and very
> challenging!) heights. And visually the much higher poly count on the new
> aircraft is stunning. The new weapons systems are both complex (sometimes
> frustratingly realistic!) and satisfying to use when you get it right. And
> while the AI and gameplay is as disappointing as ever, when you lose
> yourself in the challenge of tackling a particular problem, it's possible
> to lose yourself in the moment.
>
> And there is one user-made dynamic campaign out in alpha form. I haven't
> explored it yet, because I'm too busy movie making, pylon racing, and
> learning the 25T. But it looks promising.
>
> http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/boar...hp?a=topic&t=63
>
> Andrew McP