Ace Combat Thread

can you actually reach space this time? I miss the airplane that could let you fly to the stratosphere or whatever.

Thanks, Larry. Now the local bookstore is closed. I hope you're happy.

Is the source code available? No? Then I don't give a shit.

I want to suck his dick, this is fantastic

...

I don't need to play these in order, right?
Never played any ace combat before.

Play them in order user. 4, 5, and then 0.

What about 1, 2, and 3?

Larry was a fag

I don't disagree. Besides that, he wanted to get rid of glorious clay that belongs rightfully to Belka.

Anybody got that image that shows which Ace Combat titles to go for? I've been meaning to get back into the series since I loved the PS1 and PS2 games.

For the full order, it goes 0,1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Xi, X, Advance, and then 3. AC3 takes place far into the future, and it's like Ghost in the Shell.

No image, but basically every game except 1, ACAH, and the mobile games are fine. X emulates really well in PPSSPP if you want a quick fix.

Why not 1? What's the issue with it and ACAH?

1 lacks so much detail compared to 2 even that it's not really worth it. You can play it if you like, but the draw depth and the way everything is drawn gives you a better sense of depth.

ACAH is really not an Ace Combat game. Out of the 4 hours I've played, only 1 was in a plane. The story isn't terribly great, which wouldn't bother me if they didn't try to turn into Call of Duty cinematics but this time with planes. Also not in Strangereal, so it's a more boring setting.

>there are still people who don't know that Captain Bartlett is actually PJ
>there are still people who don't know that Kei Nagase is actually Kei Nagase
>there are still people don't know that Ace Combat 3 was all a simulation
>there are still people who don't like flamenco music
>there are people who still fly in a straight line
>THESE PEOPLE ARE ON Holla Forums RIGHT NOW

user, there is much that still needs to be discussed.

>there are still people who don't know that Captain Bartlett is actually PJ
Wait, what? Just started playing Zero.

That's one probably not true. It's just a fan theory.

Wat

In one of the endings to either Drakenguard 1 or 2, the main character turns into monster, warps to some modern day city and gets shot down by the MC from Ace Combat 2.

Right here.

I'm mad as hell.

It's incredibly not true as Bartlett can actually be identified in a specific F-14 in mayhem. Whatever fan thought that is a massive retard.

If your PC isn't fast enough to play on Software Mode (which is 99.9% perfect) then here's what you do for Hardware mode (copy/paste from a previous thread):

1. Grab the latest build of PCSX2 from this link buildbot.orphis.net/pcsx2/index.php
2. And then configure PCSX2 as you would have before with your own preferred settings. (I believe using GSdx is mandatory for the renderer)
3. Once you've set up everything including the graphics renderer, go to your PCSX2 folder and navigate to PCSX2/inis/ and edit the GSdx.ini file with notepad or other text editor of your choice.
4. Append "UserHacks_mipmap=1" minus the quotation marks somewhere on the file. Save and close.
5. Boot up AC5/Zero (It does fix AC04's ground textures also but it doesn't fix the black player aircraft and sun flare issue)

Forgot to add: Hardware mode has a fucked up sun flare texture and the plane hangars are probably going to be messed up, but the rest of the game is fine.

HOW THE FUCK DO I FLY THROUGH THAT TINY FUCKING THING IN THE MEGALITH WHEN I HAVE TO SAVE MY WINGMEN FROM THOSE FUCKING YELLOWS HOLY SHIT EVERYTIME I KILL EVERY YELLOW WITHOUT A SINGLE FRIENDLY CASUALTY I FUCK UP BECAUSE OF THESE WONKY FUCKING PHYSICS. I EVEN BEAT THE ONE IN GRUNDER INDUSTRIES ON ACE EASY PEEZY BUT THATS BECAUSE GRAVITY WOULDNT FUCK ME OVER AND THERE ISNT A GIANT ENEMY METAL BEAM THAT BLENDS IN WELL WITH THE WALLS AND THE GAMES LACK OF DEPTH.

>there are still people who don't know that Kei Nagase is actually Kei Nagase

user, next you're going to tell me that the Nagase in AC2 is the sister of Nagase in Ridge Racer :^)

ace combat also takes place in the galaga universe

Nigger, take out all the Yellows first. Then fly through the tunnels slowly

thats what i do. its just ace combat 4 is shit in terms of depth

I'm pretty sure you're shit in terms of depth.

...

CUM HISTORIA!

Its Ending E of the first game, Which just so happens to be the same ending that Nier is based off. I'm sure some autist can configure that mess into a somewhat coherent continuity.

Ending E takes place in Tokyo, which going by strangereal means it isn't a thing. Seriously who comes up with this shit.

approach from the north

btw, in 5 and Zero there's also unfixed bug

burst rockets from -faxi submarines in 5
and EMI attack during Pixy fight in Zero

they have similar effect to sunflare in 4
is it fixable?

Its just based on an easter egg. In the Japanese version of Drakenguard one of the pilots is called Scarface instead of Bravo-1

Strangereal is a world where economic development was roughly even across the globe, so there are no dindus. That's why every country has a decent air force. Nothing wrong with open borders in that kind of world.

It could be that Scarface is a sickass name that more than one game could use and you're just looking for connections in a desperate attempt to find something that hasn't been talked to death about for this series.

Which do you prefer, Playing with squadmates or being a legendary lone wolf?

Squadmates for the banter. It's why 5 is my favorite.

Just blow up Megalith, nigger. There's a reason you've been fine on your own the whole game.

shit-tier chart

Go dance with the angels.

Ace combat as one of their original inspirations for the game. They apparently had a ace combat dev with them at the time. All it is a small nod, nothing more and shouldn't be a basis for anything.

Playing with squadmates for the banter.

I find having a squad or even a single buddy flying with you to have been quite enjoyable through the games. That said, sometimes it's just more proper to lone wolf it for particular missions or fights.

I wish there had been the option to go full Trump on that faggot Pixie in AC0.

Why is there no game where you reclaim Belkan clay?

By the end of 5 I suppose the whole world has put Belka in a quarantine and multiple sanctions on it in order to keep it from rising up again.

DAILY REMINDER
zxstudio.org/blog/

fuck me, I had it on hardware mode. Switching to software mode fixed the blackscreen. Now there's music too which I was surprised wasn't in there with previous settings despite the menu sounds being in.
Holy shit though it's playing at half speed and even the sounds are stretched out in slow motion. In menus it plays at normal speed but the frame rate and everything drops to half as soon as the game starts. Probably something to do with my computer rather than anything else.

Make sure SW mode is set to use at least two cores, and switch to first-person the moment the game starts. You'll still get slowdowns in some conditions, but it shouldn't ever drop below 75% speed outside of cutscenes unless you have a really shit CPU.

what kind of monster are you?

Incoming aircraft porn dump

I've been playing 5 a bunch recently
F-35C cause it's my IRL planefu, but otherwise I use the X-02.
Cause Belka a shit.

Where's infinity?

nice meme

...

Fight me IRL, cunt. The Rhino is great.

cant even beat 4th gen fighters
shouldve just revived the yf23 project with modernizations

Shit, Infinity, I guess, but only every now and then. I can't really be bothered to hook my PS2 up to go through Zero again, to be honest.

X-29A, F-15C Pixy, F-16XL, and F-15E Chihaya

Because the clay doesn't belong to a bunch of retards that would nuke themselves.

...

I'm guessing that you're referring to that bullshit claim that the F-35 got "beaten" by an F-16 (The F-16 was only present to provide a visual reference during high AoA testing, and needed drop tanks to be able to fly as long as the F-35). Clearly you haven't done any real research or you're relying on RT way too much for news: theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

i wasnt actually referring to the f-16 incident
im saying most improved variants of 4th gen fighters outperform the f-35

...

theres something called autopilot that will stabilize your plain

Sauce on that .gif?

Except that's objectively untrue. The F-35A, for example, completely outmatches any combat-loaded F-16 variant in range, lift, thrust, payload, low-speed handling, high-AoA characteristics (to elaborate on this, the F-16 is known to have pretty shitty high-AoA capabilities. The F-35's max-AoA is legitimately impressive on its own, with a maximum AoA of 110 degrees, and is able to maintain level flight up to 70 degrees.), instantaneous turn rate, and speed. Even the F-35B, which has the lowest range of all the variants, beats out the F-16's maximum range without drop tanks.

HOTWHEELS LET ME FUCKING POST

anyone still have that JS code that helped with this bullshit?

...

...

Im not talking about the 16 though. the F-16 is the export model of other more refined planes such as the 15. even then, most F-35 news is blatantly false due to the government pushing it so hard. all in all the f-35 is just this generations F-16: a plane to sell to other countries while we keep the much better plane (the F-22). to believe the F-35 is anything more than that is delusional

Don't bother, that particular issue the JS code dealt with has been fixed long ago, when Hotwheels stepped down.

Are you actually mentally retarded?

the fact that you cant see through the facade the government is pulling just goes to show how deluded you are.

Y-you do realize that the F-15 has been exported a shitload right? You do realize that the 16 and 15 are meant to be complementary right? You do realize that the USAF is the primary customer for the F-16 and F-35 right?

There's a big difference between a dedicated export fighter (J-31, F-20, F-5E, FGFA) and a fighter that uses exports to lower unit costs (F-16, EF-2000, F-35, Gripen).

The 15 was not is not complimentary to the 16. the 15 is an all around better plane sans cost. the only reason the 16 was favored over the 15 is because that. The F-22 is the modern equivalent to the F-15; it is expensive with high performance. The F-35 though it has its merits is one of the worst planes this generation.

Logistics > Army > Air Force > Navy

Is this correct?

airforce last

The graph was made before it, but I assume it's somewhere on the left side for the most part because free2play fuckery.

Why?

Landlocked countries don't care about a navy.
Planes can travel anywhere, ships only on water.

navy has planes.

I didn't know destroyers, battleships and subs could carry planes.

...

The PAK-FA looks so fucking nice.

You're displaying a stunning lack of understanding of the F-15 and F-16's roles. The F-15 was designed from the start at a dedicated air-superiority fighter and interceptor. Throughout its development the mantra "not a pound for air to ground" was used to describe the design philosophy the engineers used. It was made as a dedicated air to air fighter. The F-16, on the other hand, was built from the start as a multirole fighter capable of being a cheap supplement to the F-15 in the air to air roles, and also capable of CAS and bombing missions in contested airspace. Later on the F-15 would also take on the strike role, but required a modified, dedicated variant which is known to be inferior in the air to air role compared to the A through D variants. Non-Strike Eagle F-15s are still incapable of performing air-to-ground attacks. The air-to-ground role still falls largely on the F-16.

The F-35 and F-22 share a very similar relationship, however there are differences. Both the F-22 and F-35 can carry bombs, however the Raptor cannot carry as many as the F-35. It doesn't really need to carry as many, however, as it only has that capability so that it can serve as a replacement for the F-117. The F-35 is far superior in the air to ground role while the F-22 is far superior in the air to air role, however they also overlap so that one can pick up the slack of the other if something goes wrong (which is what happened in the F-22's case. The F-35's going to have to make up for the 22's lack of numbers.).

Neither plane is objectively better than the other, they simply specialize in different roles and are developed with different objectives in mind. They aren't in competition like, say, the Rafale and Typhoon.

I'm admittedly not the biggest fan of its appearance, but that head-on shot looks fucking badass.

but thats wrong>
obviously no point in arguing with a zealous waifu fag. i get it you love the f 35 but sometimes you got to see its faults

...

are you a fighter pilot irl?

F-35 is best girl, but that's beside the point. I get that it's not a perfect plane, however that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to call it a shit plane. It is objectively not a shit plane, especially among other multirole fighters. Sure, it's 100% inferior to the F-22 in the air to air role, but it was never meant to be equivalent, so why bother even making that criticism in the first place? That would be like arguing a sports car is inferior to a truck because it can't carry as much as a truck. Both the sports car and the truck are perfectly fine vehicles, they're just made for different roles. The sports car can't carry as much as the truck, and the truck can't go as fast as the sports car, but working together they can achieve certain tasks far more easily than if they were alone. They complement and make up for each other's weaknesses.

its holding the aeronautics and aircraft design industry back

Nah, I don't have the giant brass balls needed to fly aircraft like that, but I'm an aerospace engineering major at UAH with a focus on jet/rocket propulsion.

In what way? The Bee is an engineer's wet dream. the fact that they managed to make an efficient VTOL lift system for a supersonic aircraft (something that's never really been done before) and implement it while maintaining stealth is immensely impressive. I have an extreme amount of admiration for the engineers at Skunk Works for what they did with the Lightning.

efficiency and prowess>complexity

If Lockheed's engineers hadn't been quite as good maybe the requirements would have been scaled back to something less stupid.

Eeeeeh, I can see where that engineering mindset comes from, but I really feel like it's demonstrably inaccurate and would hold aircraft designers back from making any real progress. Complexity isn't at all mutually exclusive from efficiency and prowess, in fact more complex features tend to benefit flight performance greatly. Take active aeroelastic wings, for example. Systems that take advantage of wing aeroelastic twist will undoubtedly increase the overall complexity of the aircraft, however it makes the flight control system much more efficient, allows for massively improved flight control, and allows for a thinner and highly swept wing, which reduces weight and drag.

Hell, the F-22 isn't even remotely a simple plane, neither is the F-15. They're both immensely more complex than the F-35A and F-16 in their flight control and propulsion systems. High-performance air-superiority fighters have never been and will never be simple aircraft. Only idiots like Pierre Sprey think that simple aircraft always trump complex aircraft. I think we can all agree that simple aircraft like the F-16 or Gripen, while not bad aircraft, would get their asses royally handed to them by the far more complex F-22. Cheap, simple aircraft have their niche, but don't expect them to match up with advanced, high-cost air superiority fighters.

...

What is the best fighter jet and best bomber in the world?

What are the differences between Russian and American jets when it comes to doctrine and shit?

I'm an engineer, not a defense analyst, but I'll answer your questions as best I can.

That's a REALLY hard question to answer, user, especially for fighters. It only gets harder when a lot of the fighters used by air forces around the world haven't actually seen any combat at all. The Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-22, F-35, J-20, J-10, F/A-18E/F, and T-50 are all undoubtedly capable fighters, but not a single one has seen combat against an enemy with an actual air force. There hasn't even been a dogfight in nearly two decades now. So I can only speculate as to which ones would rise above the rest.

If we're judging based off of sheer air to air prowess, the F-22 would probably be the winner in the fighter category. It by far has the most technologically advanced design of any air superiority fighter on earth and its flight performance is just as impressive. However, if we're judging based off of flexibility in the battlefield, the F-35A would have the upper hand. The F-35's swing-role capability coupled with its ability to use a shitload of weapons across the battlefield makes it a fearsome foe. The F-35 would be even more fearsome in large numbers. That's when its data-linking abilities really starts to shine, as once any single F-35 has a radar lock on a target, every single F-35 on the battlefield has a lock on that target and can independently fire upon it.

Now, before I move onto bombers, I want to reiterate what I said earlier that every single fighter I listed earlier is amazing. An actual conflict between countries operating these aircraft would not be as clear cut as I'm making this sound. Air-to-air combat is a really touchy business, and it's us engineers whose job it is to make sure that pilots have as many tools as they can get to win a fight. However, in the end, the victor in air to air combat scenario is generally the pilot with greater skill, rather than the best aircraft. This is especially true in WVR combat (even though it's extremely unlikely that would ever happen).

Bombers are pretty difficult to determine as well, especially since there are a ton of different types. I'll just focus on strategic bombers, as that's primarily what the US uses and is the most distinct from fighters, which have largely taken over the roles that other bomber types used to fill. The Tu-160 and B-52 are probably the two most versatile bombers out there right now. Though I'm a bit dubious of Russia's claims that the Tu-160's speed is actually an advantage (speed and altitude stopped being a good defense against missiles back in the 60s) I can't deny that the Tu-160 is a fantastic aircraft. It beats the B-52 in speed and payload which is extremely impressive and is a feat that US aircraft have yet to match. However the B-52 solidly beats it in sheer range and flexibility. There's a reason why the B-52 will likely see 90-100 years of service. It's a fantastic bomber that easily has the best payload and range of any bomber in the US arsenal. The fact that it's very easily modified with more modern systems just adds to its appeal. I'm very interested to see how the B-21 will compare.

They're more similar than you'd think, and yet distinctly different. Both follow the high-low mix strategy to a certain extent (Su-27 & MiG-29, F-22 & F-35) and both sides are now embracing stealth technology. However, Russia seems to really be banking on supermaneuverability playing a key role in air combat and has implemented it in pretty much all of their frontline fighters, while the US prefers to develop more conventionally maneuverable fighters, only recently breaking this trend with the F-22. The US generally sticks to a conventional swept wing and tail layout to retain a degree of commonality between aircraft for maintenance and storage purposes (especially on carriers) while Russia is a lot more open to more unconventional designs such as the MiG-1.44 and Su-47.

Up to the Vietnam war, the design philosophies of the two nations were very different. The US placed a large emphasis on speed, altitude, range, and size. Many US fighters of the time, such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, were huge compared to their Soviet counterparts. While maneuverability wasn't ignored, it wasn't emphasized. The opposite was true on the Soviet side. The MiG-15,17, and 21 were all very agile aircraft for the time, and until the TOPGUN fighter school was established they posed a very big threat to US aircraft (Contrary to popular belief, this was NOT because the F-4 didn't have a gun). However, they were all a lot slower than many US fighters, which at times made interception difficult. After the war, the two countries incorporated what they learned from the other into their new aircraft. The US made sure that the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 were all highly maneuverable, and the light multirole fighter was introduced to the US arsenal, while the Soviets made sure that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were very fast and could climb to high altitude while still being highly maneuverable.

I hope that answers both of your questions in a satisfactory way. I just pulled an all-nighter so I'm not sure if it all's coherent, but if you have any more questions I'll be glad to answer them after I come out of the exhaustion-coma I'm about to enter.

Why, the T-50 and PAK-DA of course, comrade.

ACX would have been better if it wasn't held back by the PSP, in my opinion. Not that I made the graph anyway, but that's what I've come to from emulating it.

I feel like that could be said about a lot of PSP games. Dissidia Final Fantasy comes to mind. It's great on the PSP, but it would have benefited greatly from a console release.

I made a couple new webm of the PS2 games' cutscenes.

That's assuming they manage to iron out all the kinks and absurdly bad engineering in it. Last time I read the pilots were having to reboot the radars mid-flight because it would fail in a non-insignificant frequency during flight. Hell, and the thing can't even acquire a target and engage a weapon. The bug list is massive:
>>archive.is/7hN0L
At this point I wonder if it keeping the program running isn't the biggest and brightest example of the sunken-cost fallacy and if it isn't worth scraping the thing and making F/A-22s for the Air Force and creating a new plane for the Navy/Marines.

To some, I'm known only as "The Ribbon."

The lighting makes me think of MST3K but I have no idea.

Bad engineering doesn't make a fighter that is unintentionally capable of supercruise. The Flight software for the F-35 isn't in its final version (nor was it expected to be). Rebooting the software in flight is a non-issue. It does not prevent the F-35 from flying nor does it prevent it from using its radar in any way. Regardless, that bug was fixed months ago with the block 3i software update.

That's just flat-out untrue. The F-35 has already carried out weapon targeting and deployment tests. Hell, it even tested its data-linking system by locking onto a target drone and firing a aegis missile off of a Navy ship to destroy it.

Do you seriously think that other fly-by-wire fighters (particularly the F-22) don't have buglists of their own? Every single one has had bug issues at some point. That's an inherent part of having a digital flight computer. The F-16, for example, had (and still has, to a certain extent) a big issue with divide-by-zero errors if it went below sea level. Israeli pilots ran into this issue when they were flying missions over the dead sea. When this error occurred, the flight computer crashed and had to be rebooted. The only reason why the Lightning is being criticized for its bugs is because its buglist is public, journalists are idiots (or in RT's case, tools for propaganda), and laymen are gullible.

Oh spare me, it's FAR too late to cancel the program. The god damn plane is IN SERVICE. It isn't LockMart's little experimental jet anymore. You must be seriously delusional if you think that a hypothetical F/A-22 would be cheaper than the F-35A. Even this year, the F-35A has already achieved a unit cost of $90 million (engine included) and the cost will only drop as production ramps up to full-rate production in 2018. The USAF would never be able to purchase the F-22 in the same numbers as the F-35, nor would they be able to maintain as many F-22s at once. No issues presented during the F-35 program would warrant cancellation. Hell, compared to past programs, the F-35's development has gone extremely smoothly. The F-35 has been flying for 10 years now. By the time the F-16 had been flying for 10 years it had already killed multiple pilots and had experienced even more crashes. The worst that the F-35 has had to go through was the fleet getting grounded (which has also happened to the F-16 in its first 10 years thanks to a too-small vertical stabilizer that had to be retrofitted). Not a single aircraft has crashed, and only 1 unit has had to be written off. Hell, before the F-16 it was pretty common for at least 1 test pilot to die during initial flight testing.

I highly recommend that you watch this series of videos. This guy knows what he's talking about:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U&list=PLr7UZ_rywxTFdhDfu7SFimAMAUVdpabKL

If you're interested in reading about what a former F-16 pilot thinks about the plane, you should read this:
nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

If I remember correctly, the F-22 has also experienced a few crashes as well, hasn't it? Didn't the YF-22 also crash?

It's your words against the DoD saying that this shit won't be ready happen until mid-2017. The Airforce keeps saying "it's combat ready, it's combat ready" then publish a bug-list in February 2016 saying that they don't expect it to be able to acquire target and engage weapons until mid-2017 (and this is if no further delays happen).
And now in September 2016:
>The Pentagon’s top testing office warns that the F-35 is in no way ready for combat since it is “not effective and not suitable across the required mission areas and against currently fielded threats.” (Emphasis added) As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it “will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).” In several instances, the memo rated the F-35A less capable than the aircraft we already have.
>>http: //www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html
I'll take the words of the Pentagon and the DoD about the real state of the plane over some random on Youtube-video and pretty publicity pictures.

It's too bad, because the updated Assault Horizon engine they used for Infinity is actually pretty and fun to play in once you're not forced to DFM everything everywhere forever and have a decently leveled plane. But yeah, having to level up planes so they can turn faster, have better sidewinders, and whatnot really fucking sucks. I always hated games that used a timed energy system, and Infinity's got one of the absolute worst I've ever seen.

Sucks, because Excalibur in Infinity is the coolest shit.

I'm not even going to bother. You're clearly incapable of understanding basic facts if you listen to that trash. I bet you also consider Pierre Sprey a legitimate source, don't you faggot? I'll take the words of pilots and engineers over a liberal cuck's analysis of a defense analysts worries about the block 3i software any day.

Thanks.