วีดีโอ

Dcs world

its a modification of F4b with modern missiles but same FM

Such as? What other games provide the massive degree of freedom the eden editor provides to Arma III? (Reforger doesn't count.)

Do you mean Squad?, if so Arma's completely different from Squad in terms of gamemodes

Arma has so many varieties of fights icluding sea air and ground so thats why people still prefer it i think. Also another reason why is you can make up any scenario you want its a game that allows u to highly modify it

its called classic trolling the experts :D

actually its not AI, its made flyable with vsn and my own code

You will be surprised to see the number of aircraft available now

@@waroftheworlds3051 it was crazy back in the day, I'm struggling to remember any names.. is the 151st still a thing? God it has been YEARS!

search for Xenia emulator

yes

do you want the lua file?

@@waroftheworlds3051 actually we have our modder i only showcase mig21 with adders and archers. Was just curious if you fly together or a lone wolf.

@@battleaxes_raavan you may find it strange but i only use DCS for modding.In fact my installation is so heavily modded with personal files that i can not join any server. So i only create SP scenarios for my own fun. To give you an idea i have at least 6 versions of F-16, 4 versions of F-18 and 3 versions of MiG-21 including bison

@@waroftheworlds3051 yeah got your point we have some people like you too... if somehow you are interested hanging out with fellow Indian Simmer do let me know. And keep experimenting!

F 16

I've seen and read many different rhymes and reasons on why they land the way they do. Largely it comes down to how naval aviators are trained. Then there are other factors like the pitch and roll (sorry Navy, I'm AF and don't know your terminology) of the ship due to sea conditions, the ships speed, weather, etc. Although, I've read that modern HUDs take care of a lot that for you. Historically, I've also read that it also harkens back to WWII days with the Corsair. Since it had such a long nose it was virtually impossible to land it on a carrier due to little to no visibility, until the Brits found out that landing was possible to do with a steeper glide slope and higher sink rate and that style of landing for carrier operations has stuck since then worldwide. If I personally had to guess, I'd say it largely comes down to the length of the runway on the carrier deck. Since you essentially want to fly the plane into the wires to arrest the aircraft with full throttle incase of wire snap or bolter. If you come in too shallow or slow and the wire breaks or the hook skips over the wire your speed may be too slow for a go around at full throttle or too fast to brake to a stop before going over the edge of the deck. However, most pictures of modern carrier landings I've seen the aircraft is usually slightly pitched up before touch down anyway so I'm not sure what's right anymore. That's just my guess though, idk if it has any actual merit or truth. Maybe an actual naval aviator will see this and can give some actual insight, otherwise I recommend you do your own research into it.

@@CodeEpsilon Thanks for the good answer. I found someone who said they have a minimum height they can come over the end of the deck at, to avoid hooking the rails or other things if the boat tilted up on rough seas. So basically a safety thing

The "air force " landing here is even more inaccurate. Landing halfway down the runway is not acceptable performance.

Thanks for the tip