Leaderboard

I am against R-77's on current FC 2.0 Flankers. If you want ARH missiles, take Fulcrum S. Mission designers should always implement GCI on a side that uses Flankers and Fulcrums because these aircraft are designed from ground up to use GCI's.

После "знакомство" с ED краине ненавыжу слова "вероятно" и "возможно"... Чего Вы резину тянете ("вероятно" до мая), немогли сразу по выходу ГС2 патч выпустить?!!! Запышитес в книгу рекордов Гинеса - по задержком выхода патч-тов и обновлении.... Я Всех абсолютно предупреждал - Тут не чат Предупреждение.

Okai, I had to dig a bit into this one myself - so bear with me. Easy things to check on your own side: - Replace your cables! It's one of the easiest things to check - and darn cheap. - Using Wireless? Don't! Use cables from your PC to the router. - "Bigfoot Networks Killer XENO Pro" in your PC? Set it to application mode. - Can you borrow a router from a friend? Test-replace your own with a new one, and see if that improves your situation. - Router firmware upgrade/downgrade. It can be quite dangerous if you dont know what to do - it *can* break your router and leave you without internet and a very angry wife. But a few routers and firmware may cause undesired package loss (DLINK anyone?). - Your router logs - very easy to forget - find them and read them. ------------ Symptoms and how to investigate: A few facts first: - FC2/DCS is NOT using ICMP (Windows/Linux "ping" wont give any answers) - FC2/DCS uses both TCP and UDP for certain mechanisms. - UDP is a lightweight protocol, it's not meant to be reliable. - TCP is meant to be reliable, but it comes with a added latency / bandwidth cost. * Others can connect - but I cannot. * I can play but I loose connection now and then. The sum of packetloss (UDP) "from you--> to the server --> and back to you" is too high. If you cannot improve the server's (ISP, cables, routers etc) then you can only try to improve things on your own side. Typically you may find this in the <gamefolder>\Temp\network-<datetime>.log: [size=1]6.361000: Lua: events.lua loaded[/size] [size=1]NET: 6.361000: Lua: events.lua loaded[/size] [size=1]NET: 6.362000: Lua: loading ./Scripts/net/default.cfg : OK[/size] [size=1]NET: 6.362000: Lua: loading ./Config/network.cfg : OK[/size] [size=1]NET: 6.362000: Lua: loading ./Scripts/net/net_types.lua : OK[/size] [size=1]NET: 11.607000: client has started[/size] [size=1]NET: 28.856000: server maxPlayers=32, numPlayers=1[/size] [size=1][color=seagreen]NET: 28.857000: connected to server[/color][/size] [color=seagreen][size=1]NET: 28.857000: Lua: on connect: 153.221.12.140:10308[/size][/color] [color=red][size=1]NET: 237.175000: disconnected: Server ping timeout[/size][/color] [color=red][size=1]NET: 237.180000: disconnected from server[/size][/color] [size=1]NET: 623.672000: disconnected: [/size] [size=1]NET: 623.672000: disconnected: [/size] [size=1]NET: 623.672000: client has stopped[/size] * I pinged the server, but got no response. ICMP and ping is not required for FC2/DCS to work. Unfortunately Telnet is the only reliable method - but you could ask the server-owner to try to open for ICMP/Ping, then you may be able to use this method later. * Telnet worked, but I cant connect with FC2 to the server. TCP may be open in your firewall, but UDP openings may be missing. Or UDP may be lost enroute and back to your again. * Telnet didnt work as expected. You couldn't reach the server over internet - TCP may be blocked in your firewall, or on the server firewall. - Incorrect port, is the server using 10308 or some other port? Can other people connect? * Playtesting: Playing MP on that particular server This is the only method for determining if you have a reliable connection. You dont have a reliable connection to the server if: - you cannot connect. - you can connect, but drops out after a while. Too many UDP packages are not reaching the server and back to you. ------------ Test procedures for the tech savvy * So what to do to check if you can reach a server? You cannot use "ping nn.xx.yy.ww", it's not supposed to answer. However you can "telnet <serverip> <serverport>". Example: for my server on LAN: "telnet 192.168.101.98 10308" If you do that from a CMD prompt, telnet, and: GOOD: the CMD goes "black" - followed by a lot of rubbish - then you have a connection. Close the CMD prompt. Firewall and Route is OK. [*]BAD: the screen waits and you get "Could not open connection to the host, on port 10308: Connect failed" - there are no "server answering your request". - Or the route through internet and back is broken. - Or a firewall along the way is blocking the port. You are NOT reaching the server - or it cannot reach you. Now you have determined if you *can reach* the server. You have not determined if you have a *reliable* connection to it. Server Admins: - Check and recheck any NAT rules. Network translation may be incorrectly configured - but that should cause loss for both TCP and UDP. As long as you're past getting TCP working then NAT should be configured correctly. Acedys PING TIMEOUT suggestions: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=737045&postcount=81 Other useful tips: - Tracert *can* indicate how many hops you have to the server. Many hops (> 15 hops): Very likely that you may expect a few more losses than normal, as well as higher latency. Short / medium route (1-15 hops): You shouldn't expect package loss. But thats it - tracert cannot tell you if you have a reliable connection. - Properly configuring the router for the correct mode (or zone) such as sniffer suggested here. ---------------- FINAL NOTE: Telnet is not installed by default on Windows 7. You may have to add this using Control Panel -> Programs -> Add Windows components -> Telnet Client

I thought you were intelligent enough not to use a generalized and false statement like this. Since when did pilot skill and pilot error drop out of the equation predicting the outcome of a head to head engagement? Both are as important if not more important than what plane one flies or weapons one brings. Even you make mistakes, as you showed only a couple of days ago.

I myself am not a huge fan of the LO F-15 and the tactics used by its pilots. Sometimes however I don't understand what the fuss is all about. I've said it before, We will fight with whatever we have. You want R-77's - go fly the MiG. This will in addition teach you to manage your fuel much better, and also make your search patterns more thorough and good, because of the limited range, you gotta work efficiently and fast, also react fast to threats. Last but not least - use teamwork. The same goes for the Flanker. Tougher eagles will give pilots of the russian birds more of a challenge, so whoever wants to get more proficient and better in air-combat, be it BVR or CAC, will benefit from this. Giving the flanker R-77s is not much of a solution... Yeah I would like to have 9 tons of fuel and 8 R-77s under my wings, but we will be back to the 'good old Full burners take off, climb, spam all of your ARH's, run fast and land' tactic. I'd like to play the game the way it was designed, so we'll just have to overcome some of the advantages of the eagles, by adapting and employing different strategies and tactics. I enjoy a kill much more when I outsmarted the enemy, and not out-fueled/out-ammo-ed, out-run him. That is the decision, not a fix for the flanker, but rather a fix in the thinking of how a fight against an eagle should be fought!

+1! После 70-ти баллов акуле 80 для КХ вполне характеризует АГ-шных обозревателей симуляторов и, к сожалению, массовую аудиторию. Неспособность или нежелание освоить сложный инструмент (пусть даже это предмет развлечения) приводит к агрессивному отрицанию..

+5000! Банить по серийнику.

Читаем "Быстрый старт"(ответ срочный).

Прежде всего хочу выразить благодарность парням из ЕД за их работу. Спасибо! Пусть ваши продукты будут продолжать задавать высокую планку качества на рынке боевых авиасимуляторов! А теперь к теме. Я являюсь администратором сервера Авиасибирь. Ничуть не преувеличу если скажу, что проблема борьбы с читерами и прочими игроками, которые своими действиями мешают летать в онлайне, является очень острой. Даже отсутствие ПО выделенного сервера не такая большая проблема, как нарушители правил полётов на серверах. Обходились без выделенного сервака столько лет - подождём ещё, мы терпеливые. Но ни админы серверов, ни пользователи этих серверов не смогут обойтись без эффективного способа ограничения доступа на сервер для... хулиганов. :) На сегодняшний день все способы бана на онлайн серверах реализованы при помощи сторонних самописных утилит, которые блокируют доступ по IP адресу клиента. Способ этот очень неэффективный, т.к. у большинства пользователей IP-адреса динамические: банишь один адрес нарушителя, но он тут же подключается с другим адресом после дисконнекта. :doh: Также нарушители активно используют анонимные прокси-сервера. Только на нашем сервере список правил для бана растянулся на несколько страниц формата А4! Уверен, у других не меньше. Я уже раньше поднимал тему на этом форуме, в которой я говорил об объединении баз айпишников забаненных, чтобы можно было банить нарушителей централизованно. Эффект от этого был, пусть не сильно большой, но был. Самых злостных банили на нескольких популярных серверах. Хочу попросить (простите за банальность) разработчиков сделать в ближайшем патче более эффективный способ бана. Например, по хешу железа, установленного на компьютере пользователя. И желательно не одного устройства, а нескольких. Бан по MAC-адресу сетевой карты тоже не подходит. Сейчас много утилит, которые позволяют менять этот МАК-адрес. Этот хеш мог бы вычисляться клиентом ГС2 всякий раз при подключении к серверу. Пожалуйста, прислушайтесь к этой просьбе. :helpsmilie:Админы и обычные пилоты, которые хотят играть на серверах честно, будут вам благодарны!!! Думаю, меня поддержат многие.

About the real life russian BVR philosophy in air combat..... The Russian paradigm of BVR combat has its origins in the Cold War period, when Soviet operational analysis indicated that the low kill probability of missile seekers and airframes, especially if degraded by countermeasures, would be a major impediment to success. By the 1970s the standard Soviet technique in a BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds, a semi-active radar homing weapon and a heatseeking weapon. To this effect some Soviet fighters even included a weapons select mode which automatically sequenced the launch of two rounds for optimal separation. The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles. If the missiles are wholly identical by type, then the following curves may be optimistic, insofar as a factor degrading the kill probability of one missile is apt to have a similar effect on its siblings in a salvo. However, where the missiles differ by seeker type and guidance control laws, then the assumption of statistically independent missile shots is very much stronger. A question often asked is why are Sukhoi Flanker variants equipped to carry between eight and twelve BVR missiles? The answer is a simple one - so they can fire more than one three or four round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent. A critical question which must be asked when assessing the effectiveness of Russian BVR tactics is that of Western tactics and the effectiveness of the Aim 120 AMRAAM, the principal Western BVR fighter weapon. The AIM-120A AMRAAM was introduced at the end of the Cold War to provide a "fire and forget" active radar guided weapon with a midcourse inertial guidance system and datalink support provided by the radar on the launch aircraft, allowing multiple concurrent shots. The AIM-120A was followed by the incrementally improved B-model, and then by the "short span" AIM-120C-3 sized to fit the F-22A weapon bay. The AIM-120C-4 has better kinematic performance introducing a larger rocket motor and shorter control section, and a better warhead, while the AIM-120C-6 introduced a better fuse. The latest AIM-120D introduces a redesigned seeker built for better durability in high vibration carriage environments, a two way datalink, GPS to supplement inertial guidance, incrementally improved kinematics, and better seeker performance against high off-boresight targets. Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment. The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions- Where does this leave Western air forces equipped with the AIM-120 when confronting Flankers armed with up to three times the number of BVR missiles? Illustrative examples are the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF, the latter armed in an air superiority configuration with two, the former with up to six AIM-120s Assuming the Flanker driver does not exploit his superior missile kinematic range and shoot first - an optimistic assumption - then the best case kill probability for the AIM-120 shooter firing two to four rounds is better than 90 percent. However, if we assume that hostile jamming and manoeuvre degrade the kill probability to around 50 percent - a reasonably optimistic statistical baseline here - then the total kill probability for a two round salvo is optimistically around 75 percent, and for a four round salvo over 90 percent. Arguably good odds for the four round salvo, only if the missile kill probability sits at 50 percent, but the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF will have expended all or most of its warload of AIM-120s and be unable to continue in BVR combat. In a "many versus many" engagement, the low speed of both types leaves them unable to disengage and will see both types subsequently killed by another Flanker. This best case "many versus many" engagement scenario sees the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF being traded one for one with Su-30MK/Su-35BM Flankers in BVR combat, which is the general assumption made for WVR combat between like opponents, and representative of many historical attrition air campaign statistics. To achieve this best case "many versus many" outcome of trading F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF one for one, we have stacked a series of assumptions against the Flanker - dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a missile kinematic range advantage, dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a firepower advantage, Russian BVR missile seekers no better than the AIM-120, and Russian DRFM monopulse jammers achieving a less than 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics. Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.

I'm sorry but LOL

Yeah, I hate that bastard! He is using some sort of invisibility cheat, I can never lock up on him!

It's very simple: the Su-27 is not equipped with the R-77 in real life, unlike the F-15C, which has been equipped with the AIM-120 since the early 1990s. That's it, really.

So not upgrade dor Su27 but yes for F15... Greetings

:doh: of course - note to self - think before speaking.

QUOTE: "Even so, if you really feel one aircraft overpowers the other, why not create severs that remove that aircraft (or very limited numbers available)?" HAHAHAHAHA....THATS WHAT WE WOULD DO if WE HAD OTHER AIRCRAFT TO USE!!...LIKE OH I DUNNO...THE F-18....F-16....f-14.........

Before the westerners chime in with their supremacy statements. Yes, the majority of the Russian Air Force would indeed field SU-27S (as in game) with R-27R as main weapon against fighters. Of course with close GCI control, AWACS and MiG-31s and of course C-300 and 400 SAM sites. However, there are two regiments of SU-27SMs that are on active service along with other "more advanced" toys (including SU-35s) that are sprinkled across the Russian Federation. Nobody here, whoever they are can tell you for a fact how many PBB-AE missiles the Russian Air Force has, it is certainly not abundant but I am sure it isn't extinct either. All these "My sources" or other "experts" is a never ending game. And you are right in terms of availability of information. There are millions more F-15 pilots that will tell you and share everything with you while there are only so many SU-27 pilots that live on a miserable salary, trained in a country that seized to exist 19 years ago and went through more turmoil than any other. However, last time I checked FC2 is not an economic simulator... especially since DCS:Black Shark is modelled after a helicopter that only has 12 or even less flying ships in real life. So yes, things are grim economically and Russia does not have anywhere near as much UBERness as USAF... that is why we aren't going around the world dictating what we like and don't like. Also remember that the doctrine of Russia has primarily been containment/defensive rather than offensive, as such a lot of weapon systems rely on home advantage. Flight sim, not economic sim.

hello guys, just wanted to share with you me experience. Since I bought DCS BS I had in almost every flight an error of dcs.exe or *.dll errors or every kind of error you can get. Posted here my logs (the error msg were the same as reported by many users) without any result. Tried to change XP to Win7, all drv version of my ati 4850, nothing... every flight ended with an error, was really frustrated!! Untill I tried to set my ram speed of my corsair ddr2 1066 (533x2) CL5 set @2.2v as stated on the modules, down to 400mhz and voltage on auto. This fixed the problem definitely!! and I couldn't see any performance loss.. maybe I could have worked on different voltage of modules but those are what stated on the modules... and I hade similar issues only on BS and FSX, while nothing running on many other fps games. now I've been flying for several weeks with any kind of errors :thumbup: hope it will helps cheers Alessandro

Let me start by saying Thanks ED! I have been flying MP all week and boy I'm loving FC2! I teamed up with a Lomac buddy of mine from back in the day and we hit up some servers. Mostly playing on the 104th (full switch). First and foremost it FEELS like "modern air combat". Not having most of the ECM glitches and with the new missiles behavior, you actually have to outsmart your opponent in BVR. For so long playing FC1 I haven't felt the tactical sense of the sim but FC2 changed it. Me and my buddy found ourselves flying for 3hours a day, devising tactics and simply having a blast online. Firing the vulcan for the first time also gave me the chills. It's closer to its real life counterpart and BOY that thing is deadly now! And I'm not even talking about the upcoming BS com. patch... All that, topped off with so much better performance. Better graphics and smoother gameplay, All I have left to say is Kudos! Thanks for giving us FC2!

Я, в свою очередь, очень надеюсь, что кто-то прислушается и к мыслям от ED... которые не только в этом топике.

Yep, player "Building" is No 1 killer in FC2 ...:smilewink:

Yes, you can. For example CH PRO Throttle, CH Quadrant, Saitek PRO Flight Throttle Quadrant. These work "standalone". Throttle from Saitek X-52/PRO HOTAS is suitable too. Sokol1_Br

Exactly, the only reason i can see people wanting 77's is because they've lost the ability to MD and run. FC2.0 is how it should be now, flying a Flanker is for heroic team work where as the MiG's and Eagle's are suited for the lonewolf fanboys.:D Im guessing you've tested both of them, because you have WAY too much info to be an average Joe.

Активация происходит 1 раз. Постоянного выхода в интернет не надо. Если вдруг железо поменяешь, а комп будет не подключен к интернету, то можно СМСкой или через любой другой компьютер, с выходом в инет, активировать ГС2.

If im going to fly with R-77's on a Flanker I want the avionic upgrades to go with it including uprated Flanker TWS, its not happening as the info required is not known. I'll just carry on regardless with this unbalanced sim, flying 20th century Flankers Vs 21st century F-15's. :)

Ох, я надеюсь прежде чем забанить за оффтоп - нас предупредят.. ) У нас тут наверное разные приоритеты. Интересному геймплею на уфолетах я (не думаю что одинок) предпочту умеренно интересный геймплей на хорошо смоделированном объекте, поскольку в последнем случае получу еще и удовольствие от управления + собственно полета - а в первом случае - будет только геймплей. Не знаю, можно ли совместить сейчас лучшее из обоих подходов, первым сим не нужен, вторым нехватает людей (спецов - единицы), аудитории, бюджета и ресурсов компа.. Но в любом случае - это игры разных жанров и оценивать их нужно по разным критериям, а не лепить все в кучу "с точки зрения масс" . Аркаду глупо пинать за уфолетность, почему тогда авиасим за не всем понятный геймплей должен получать такие пенальти?

Want this to be a positive post, don't want any negative comments. Have not spent much time in the pit yet but here are some of the things I really like about Flaming Cliffs 2.0 1. The target box can be assigned an analog axis, so can be retained at fixed size, from mission to mission, until its adjusted. 2. Frame rate. I have a multicore, and it runs significantly better than FC1.12 with comparable settings. 3. The extra DOF's for the pit. Even the stock 'roll' and slight shifting of the seat postion, adds to the sensation of realism. 4. I don't have to worry about the laser overheating SU25T (from what I can see). 5. New visuals are fantastic. They look great in BS, but while flying over cost line at high speed, with high FPS. Amazing. Nothing comes close. 6. Separate control sets for each aircraft. Have not separated profile yet, great to have the ability to do it. 7. Terrain with higher mountains, much more fun to fly in. 8. Beautiful Su25 3d model

вот пример использования... у меня так (тоже подумываю о продаже)

He said while standing down at the docks carrying a big sign saying "get it here":lol: Sorry, I could not avoid that one. Anyway..... Yes.... Install Lock on, install FC2 and if you want you can delete Lock on after that as FC2 only needs it for install purposes. But could be good for you to try the original Lock on and feel the difference. Good luck :)

+5000!!!:thumbup: Проблема актуальная, Максим молодец, что создал эту ветку.

What's flawed is the suggestion that my message was: piloting is based on "gut feelings". I've been flying gliders since I was 15 lol. If you think that a desktop flight sim can replace learning (or being familiar with) the attitude of an actual aircraft or the environment you're operating in, you are sadly mistaken. There is no pause button for bathroom breaks, no slew mode and there sure's hell aren't any labels hovering over traffic. Do I honestly need to mention preflights? Will a flight sim give you the basic idea of just flying an aircraft? What did I say two posts ago? Again, the most a desktop flight sim can offer is assisting you to learn IFR. "The most", not "only". Edits to add: I can sit my 5 year old son in front of the XBox and watch him win at a grand prix game but most certainly wouldn't expect him to do very well sitting on my lap as he's steering my truck down a dirt road...even if he had "the general idea".

None of the kills of the same aircraft class.

With or without an instructor... I suspect the latter. I can to this day describe the feeling of sheer terror and excitement that surrounded my first solo flight. It's like the first time you had sex, only it lasts a lot longer and is a helluva lot better and scarier, even when you don't wrap it up. Your point is moot you had the safety net of someone who DID not want to die that day. Yes I am convinced, because I have seen it. I have seen a so-called simmer stroll into my flying school several years ago proclaiming to know how to do it. He couldn't start the engine. Plus you had the safety net of an instructor who like most of us has the desire to remain alive for as long as possible. Not quite... I fully understand that we are entirely talking about a hypothetical situation. What you're missing is that I don't think, that even theoretically, this is possible. And seriously would you take a 50% chance of survival? Of course I have more chance of being killed on the way to the airport. But we're looking at this objectively. Is it theoretically possible that someone could do this without killing themselves? Nope. A snowball in hell has more chance. Well if we're going to take our 'hardcore' simmer attitude into the real world, why on Earth would we not do this by the book? That's the whole point of DCS:BS right, we're doing it by the book. So unless you're saying let's play Real Life BS in 'Game Mode'... I think what you're asking is: is this possible? No it's not. You are never going to get this perfect situation where there's no tower and nothing else in the way. See this is the problem. We have to transpose this hypothetical situation into the real world. The question is simply if you can fly the thing in a sim can you fly it in the real world. No. Real world factors play too much of a role. Have you ever dealt with real world factors affecting the operation of an aircraft, as aircraft commander? Sure my experience is limited. I have flown a handful of SEPS, King Air 200 and Citation Mustangs and while I will say FS X had some help in getting me to understand the Garmin G1000 it in no way helped to fly the thing. It helped to manage the navigation system only. And even then, the real thing was a little different to the simulator version. We're talking about the consequences of using a piece of commercial software, that is designed to make money, and then transposing this to a real aircraft. Ultimately, let's face it, none of us outside of ED really know how much of the Shark is perfectly in tune with the real world counterpart - especially given the lack of production of this type. The answer is still no. Without that safety net of an instructor it would 99% of the time end in something horrible. Have you not seen the video of the chap who bought a Schweizer 300 and wanted to fly it before he'd had a lesson? Yeah you guessed it, helicopter was written off. Idiot survived but is prime candidate for a Darwin Award next time he tries something of this nature. You see the real problem with this entire hypothetical situation is: Real pilots will disagree, because we have been through training made the silly mistakes. Have had the fear that comes with total responsibility. Yes this is probably a very elitist statement, but that is something that a pure simmer cannot understand. Do you know what it's like to be legally responsible for the lives of three other people or even that of 300? The fact their longevity rests entirely upon the decisions you make in the next thirty seconds? For sure you can go out and be reckless on your own. But when you f**k up and know that the souls on board are your responsibility then perhaps you can actually see the viewpoint that is being presented. Flying has always, and will always, be about command decision. Physically controlling the craft is one thing - in fact it's the easy part of fixed wing flying. And I still stand by my laurels, just because you can hover a Kamov in DCS does not mean you can do it in real life, unless you have the relevant real life experience. I can hover helicopters, I can fly them happily. I am not however licensed. I have never flown a helicopter solo. I can happily throw the Kamov around like there's no tomorrow. But I would not feel confident enough in my abilities to take one up and survive the experience. There are just too many variables. And this brings us back to what flying really is. Command decision. Simulators do not teach you command decision. Experience teaches you command decision, and it is command decision that gets you home alive.

"hahahahahaha. No. the F-15C which they made it MUCH better "accidently" in FC2.0" hahahahaha...no, you only got kills "before" because the F15 was not up to date with how it originally should have been and you were simply popping off ET's without a worry nor any skill on your part, now it is up to what it should have been and you are getting spanked because you never took any real time to learn how to fly your plane because you "knew" the Eagle was porked and you didn't need to. All those Eagle pilots had to resort to using smart tactics to down the SU pilots and now it has just made them even more better at spanking people like yourself:D

Say wa??? As in NOT trusting your instruments above your gut feeling? That's the worst thing you can do, even in clear sky's and good visibility its easy to get an false sense of orientation if your not using your instruments. Believe, pilots have flown there fixed/rotary wing craft right into the deck in what can be considered as good weather conditions because they trusted there gut feeling more then there instruments..... I don't know of any cases that prove the opposite. Ontopic, flight simulators can for 100% be used as an replacement of the real aircraft. Just depends on the simulator your using, for example, if you get in the full motion simulator at eurocopter and get your license in it you can fly the real thing straight away whitout an copilot or instructor. and that's a FACT If someone can learn enough from a average desktop simulator and pull off the same trick? Unlikely but expect the unexpected. As for my personal experience I went for a flight in a glider, few mins in the air, pilot and i been chatting abit about flight simulators and my hobby model flying, and he said he needed to orientate himself. So he asked if i felt ok and take control for a minute or two, sure i said. I flew the remaining 6 mins back to the field and handed over the control on the last leg before finals. ^^^^above happend when i was 12 or 13^^^^ Somewhat later in my life i had won a flight in a cessna, was at an airshow and they set up a challenge for people, it was Land the aircraft (on a simulator) whithin an as short amount of time on the runway and win a real flight. There was one pilot quicker then, and that was the TEST PILOT of the real aircraft. So i won the flight, and here again they let me fly for a bit which wasnt all to hard, making an 2 minute turn and flying trough your own turbulence wasnt something i managed to do, though it was a nice challenge. ^^^was about 14 orso^^ Few years later i was having an internship at an helicopter operator. Was there as an mechanic and learning how to maintain the damn things. Sure enough there where some tests flight's and i got to fly an Aero Spatial As 355 Twinstar. Flew it straight and lvl quite well, and turning was ok but not perfect. ^^^^that was when i was 16 or 17^^^^ So WITHOUT even having flown an realistic simulator which you can control like the real thing. I say it is pretty damn well possible some of the guys that are flying the shark in there homepit can take it for a spin in real and get back safely. Whether they will follow all applicable communication protocols and the like is a different story. ps, the helicopter i flew was the one in the picture. (no not in the stadium:)) don't remember the registrations of the other 2 aircraft though.

To simulate reality. Your helmet, ejection seat and harness would be in the way IRL and preventing you, unless you have no ligaments in your neck. :smilewink:

AS you old fart :D Congrats!!!

I think I write: backup (copy) your script and config file first ;) then overwrite your files. So if there is a error you can use your old files again ^^ And I write cockpit positions not fixed at the moment. Its a alpha version ;) just for testing and find error. Ah and please dont eject on planes like c-130 or A-50 or open the canopy during the flight. Becouse normal your plane will lost the canopy. But on this aircrafts your FC2 will crash. Will fixed in the future.

That's right. They drop Su-27 from ISS, Su-27 launched R-27ERs upon re-entry ;)

Общая причина - в системе работает перехватчик клавиатуры. Чаще всего - NewView и PuntoSwitcher, возможны варианты. Переназначение клавиши пробовал? Добавлено. Кстати, стесняюсь спросить - собственно клавиша паузы есть на клавиатуре? А то помню я один случай...

welcome to the real world... MDS are always done for optimum conditions and theoretical maximums.

Well good, then you should know that you can't rely on informational brochures as the data needed to specify an accurate model. That's like putting only the VCC and Rf variables for a 4560 configured as an amplifier into Spice and expecting it to give you an accurate output reading (ie leaving out Ri, input signal freq, amplitude, etc). GG did address weight. He addressed it in the most direct way possible. Weight changes as the missile burns fuel. At full load, the missile's velocity is going to be less than it will be a half fuel load. Hal fwill be less than it will be at 1/4 fuel load. Until it runs out of fuel, it is providing the same amount of thrust. As weight decreases, thrust remains the same, speed and range increase. While that's pretty straight forward, two things the brochure does not state is the total fuel load and the fuel consumption rate of the AIM-120. This can greatly extend the range of a missile without compromising speed. From my own experience, the AIM-120 is under-modeled. Actually, the capabilities of the F-15C with it's combat electronics suite is under modeled. If it were modeled correctly, it would probably be the dominant aircraft in the game. For the sake of balance, I am thankful it's under modeled. Now, all of that said - a great combat pilot in a lesser aircraft can come out on top of a mediocre pilot in a far superior aircraft. You can give a person every system capability, but if they are not proficient with it, then they are not superior ;)

Поддерживаю на все сто!!!

+ ТыщаПитсот!!! А те Ой как актуально... Помогите честному народу..:helpsmilie:

Серьезному симулятору -серьезную защиту от читеров!!!:thumbup:

Было бы очень здОрово! Надеюсь ED прислушается...очень надеюсь!!!

better fourty and sporty then twenty and empty :lol:

Работа идёт! to rainbow_blues: Олег, с твоего позволения публикую письмо, твоё ко мне... Я не пропал. Я (автор и прочая) с Олегом Schtuzer'ом (переводчик, тестер), Олегом Tango (тестер), Алексеем (наш авиаинженер), Дмитрием Алексеевичем (пилот Ми-8, Ми-24, летчик-инструктор, боевой лётчик, пенсионер и преподаватель аэродинамики, наш консультант и тестер), Игорем (звукорежиссер) продолжаем работу над проектом "Отряд Вергеева". В субботу 20-го марта в Киеве (где практически мы все проживаем - выше перечисленные) был проведён сейшн украинских "акуловодов", где, в частности, ставился вопрос сроках релиза "ОВ" и проводилось живое обсуждение самого проекта. Мы пообещали, что постарамся завершить первую часть (1/10) к концу этого месяца, или к майским, что и стараемся сделать. Повторюсь (прошу простить): причиной задержки проекта был прецедент февральского ДТП, в котором мне "посчастливилось" травмироваться. Переломы. И было не до "Отряда Вергеева". Более или менее нормально я смог вернуться к проекту 29 марта, о чем я в группе разработчиков и тестеров "ОВ" сделал объявление и... проработал над "ОВ" 17 часов к ряду. Если вам доводилось сколь-нибудь серьёзно заниматься производством миссий для DCS: Ka-50, или кампаний - вы понимаете, насколько это трудоёмкий процесс. И это на фоне основных видов деятельности: работа, другие проекты (хлебные - в см. дающие хлеб насущный), о которых нельзя забывать - иначе семью и детей не сможешь содержать. Могу желающим дать доступ к календарю-дневнику проекта - мы такой ведём. Вышлите мне e-mail и я отправлю подписку на календарь. Олег, это к тебе. Всем это не смогу сделать. Нет времени. Я пока ещё на больничном (но вырвался на оперативный простор), что позволяет больше времени уделять "ОВ". На данный момент переписываем реплики, звук и перерисовываем карты первых 10-ти миссий кампании. Вторые 10 готовы. Э-э-э... нет, не готовы. Не записан звук на 20-ю (я ехал как раз на студию, когда попал в ДТП). Также я писал раньше, что мы ожидали партнерства... которое бы позволило посвятить всё время работе над "ОВ". Были к этому и хорошие предпосылки, и настроение, и предложения... Соответственно делалось и планирование. Не срослось. Работаем теперь в режиме "междометий", но работаем. Не думаю, что это хорошая идея выкладывать ещё миссии из первой 20-ки "Отряда Вергеева". Да, мы виноваты, но по воле случая, отчасти несчастного, поэтому откупаться на за что. Все под Богом ходим. То, что миссии будут выкладываться - это я обещаю. Из каждой последующей 20-ки по три на "демо". Дальше работа пойдет быстрее. Технологии отработаны. Что очень и очень важно.

слоган сима - "СДЕЛАЙ КАРЬЕРУ В КАРЬЕРЕ!"

...Подумывал топать в банк заказывать платежную карточку, но почитал и вспомнил о киви, посмотрел на ее проценты и сбегал в магазин за углом. Мне понравилось, как всё прошло. Может, кому пригодится: