Leaderboard

****************Update for sake of clarity***************** 300Mb (800x600) version here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=56GWIA0W 95Mb version (640x480) here: http://rapidshare.com/files/28222717/mcp12_95Mb_.zip.html 95Mb mirror thanks to the good folk at JaboG32: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=downloads&subcat=28&lang=en YouTube version... Red Bear Rising Part 1 (mostly foreplay ;-): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBBVbAbydo8 Red Bear Rising Part 2 (hardcore action): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ATp8po2jGY *************************************************** In March I started work on a movie to promote and show off the 25T in Flaming Cliffs. It's set a little further on in time from my Tornado movie, and took just a little longer than I'd hoped.... because it was March 2006 when I started! But now it's *finally* time to kick the darned thing off my HD and out into cyberspace to fend for itself. To be honest I'll be glad to see the back of it. We've been through the lovey-dovey stage where we were never apart, gone past the comfortable 'finishing each other's sentences' stage, and have now hardly spoken to each other for months even though we've been forced to spend a lot of time together for the sake of the kids. Time for a divorce. ;-) The movie is over 17 minutes long (so you'll need a large bucket of popcorn and a toilet break half way through) and I've managed to squeeze it into about 95Mb on Rapidshare. I did upload a larger version to another free site, but the downloads were so slow I dumped it. This will do for now though; the quality's not as bad as I'd expected, given the length, and if there's enough interest I'll find somewhere with more elbow room at a later date (though probably not for the 900Mb version. ;-) http://rapidshare.com/files/28222717/mcp12_95Mb_.zip.html 95Mb http://www.andrew.mcp.dsl.pipex.com/project12a.jpg Andrew McP PS The main action in this movie was filmed from a single combat mission. I could probably have made a better movie if I'd cut & pasted several different combat missions together, but I'm a bit of a purist... I like to make movies which reflect the sim as it really flies (even if it did take me many attempts to get a track I was happy with!) PPS If anyone missed the Tornado 'prequel' it's still live at... http://rapidshare.com/files/17669387/mcp11_97mb.wmv.html Just remember that if you download one movie from Rapidshare, you have to wait an hour or two before you can download another. Sorry about that, but RS is the best free site I've found so far, and the downloads are always fast (for me anyway!)

Hey all i hope this post is not a repeat but i thought it would be cool to see everyones flight set up. so heres mine :D ****edit picture got deleted on my photobucket.... upload it again when i get home...

What engine are we talking about again? 220? :D Anyway little list history: General Electric: F110 – GE – 100 F110 – GE – 129 F110-GE-132: The Block 60 F-16E/F, which is being developed for the United Arab Emirates, features extra payload and range, in part due to the new F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust. Pratt & Whitney: For the F100-PW-200 version, normal dry thrust is 12,420 pounds, rising to a maximum thrust of 14,670 pounds at full military power. Maximum afterburning thrust is 23,830 pounds. F100-PW-229: Pratt & Whitney introduced the more powerful (F100-PW-229 early 1990s) (rated at 29,100 pounds of thrust with full afterburner) The F100-PW-200+ (was intended for foreign air forces which were denied access to the more powerful -229) F100-PW-220E: A kit has been developed to bring earlier -200 engines up to a standard nearly equivalent to -220, these converted engines being designated F100-PW-220E. F100- PW-220 (used in F16 – MLU) Performance of the F100 (used in the Belgium F-16A/B) is today comparable with the F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust or 32000 pounds of thrust PS. 145Kn (kilo newtons) is about 32597.29 pounds-force From its original 24,000-pound thrust class rating the F100 has matured into an engine that can produce in excess of 32,000 pounds of thrust (+33% thrust increasing) and remains a standard for fighter engine performance.

Thanks for the comments, those who I haven't replied to specifically. It's always nice to know what people think. If LOMAC's sound didn't fall apart in complicated external views I'd be happy to use the in-sim stuff exclusively. Having to painstakingly rebuild the soundtrack and make it halfway convincing is a real PITA, and I've used non-LOMAC sounds before. As for the glow... well, you know I'm not a huge fan of special effects; I like LOMAC movies to look like the sim they're promoting. But there's no harm at all in spicing things up a little. I just think it's important to use a teaspoon to add that spice, not a bucket. :-) Otherwise the only changes I made visually were boosting the saturation slightly to improve the colours, a light unsharp mask, and a bit of sharpening. Oh, and the now compulsory explosion camera shake! I wasn't going to do that because it's not something LOMAC models, but having seen movies like yours even *I* expect to see a bit of camera shake now. You and others are slowly corrupting me! ;-) Andrew McP

Correct. I would agree, not only for this chart, but also for others in the Dash-1. The low-altitude lines all look like someone took a ruler and just drew a stright line through (0,0) - without any regard for what this physically means. That's the whole point I'm trying to make - to Yo-yo, to Rhen, to anyone who is interested. The Dash-1 contains some data that is too approximate for our use. Back up a bit, I think you have misunderstood the order of cause and effect that I'm trying to present: (1) By F=m*a, I have established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the sea level thrust of the F-15C in Lock On does not exceed 34,000 lbf. (2) Despite this, the sea level performance of the F-15C in Lock On matches the Dash-1. (3) Therefore, the Dash-1 does not describe the sea level performance of the 47,000 lbf F-15C correctly. (3) follows from (1) and (2), not the other way around. Me? Of course. I use the Streak Eagle data, which has so far given me no such ridiculous contradictions. Does the Dash-1 have more useful charts? No. They are all like that - straight lines that somebody drew with a ruler down from high altitude to the artifically fixed point of (0,0). I have some more data, but it is MUCH more complicated to analyze. It's basically a graph of airspeed, altitue, Gs, turn rate, turn radius, etc. during a mock dogfight between an F-15 and an A-4. Beautiful stuff, but if we can't even agree on what thrust the F-15C should be producing at takeoff, and whether tLock On and/or the Dash-1 describe it correctly, then we have little hope of analyzing that. Trouble is, do we know what the mil power thrust is supposed to be? Much easier to analyze max power, I think. That thrust evel is published in many places, and is more easily verifiable. Walk before we run. -SK