Leaderboard

The Altitude Alert that is set through the UFC is the standard function that provides the "ALTITUDE ALTITUDE" aural warning when penetrating the selected minimum/maximum altitude. It can be based on radar or barometric altitude, as appropriate. The Obstacle Warning Cue (OWC) allows the preselection of a clearance height above known obstacles in the DTSAS database. If an obstacle penetrates the set clearance plane and is within 4km of the aircraft, the OWC will display the OBSTACLE mnemonic on the HUD with a flashing caret to indicate the relative direction of the obstacle. The VMU will also generate an "OBSTACLE" aural alert. In addition, there is the TGP Attitude Advisory Function (TAAF) which will alert you if the aircraft exceeds certain pitch/roll limits and is below a preselected altitude, and serves as a warning of unusual attitudes while the pilot is head-down manipulating the TGP. The TAAF will generate a CHECK ATTITUDE warning on both MFCDs.

All that can be done with analogue (including hydromechanical) computers, but... why :)

New BS player here (had the game for approx. 2 weeks). Just posting to thank everyone here for the excellent information. Earlier on I had my first successful (controlled, aircraft doing what I want almost exactly) flight with the Flight Director Override turned off. I must say, I didn't think I'd ever be able to cooperate with the AP turned on. After taking the advice given in this thread (flying with FD override on, using the trimmer hold technique), learning the fundamentals, then switching back to full AP and short, regular trimmer setting I think I've finally got the knack of it. Big thanks to everyone who took the time to lay it all out, assemble the wiki resources page, and stickies lists. :D

MORE PANELS ! Made the AHCP and engine panels. Didn't have the chance to game-test them yet, but i think they should work. I made them from screenshots, so they look exactly like they look in the game, with minor adjustments. Resizeing shouldn't be too much of a problem as the resolutions of the pics is quite high.

Agree with OP, nothing comes close to this. I haven't felt this great since flying ball sims when I was in the Navy. There are a lot of things to learn and some things are more important than others, true. The question is; what is an acceptable level of understanding? Enough to kill effectively? Enough to feel like you accomplished something significant? Undefinable? I read the manual before flying, and have read it four times since, cover to cover. Once I surrendered to the manual, I found that I really enjoyed it. It's a shame how many people use it purely for reference. I can't tell you how many people I've met in multiplayer that didn't know there was a divert page in the CDU where you could get ILS/TACAN/RADIO/NAV information for every airfield. Besides that fact that three buttons gets you on the ground quicker than searching through waypoints or slewing the CDU. That's just one example. I don't mind answering questions in multiplayer. As a matter of fact, I often open a server to the community to do just that. I am glad however, that I'm the one answering more questions than I'm asking. It's very frustrating to me personally to not understand the task I'm about. RTFM... it satisfies!

I was lucky enough to get mine from Microcenter.com, it looks like they may have them in stock currently and priced at $59.99. I would call them first before I order from them (I did to verify they were in stock and I got them after a couple of days). I should mention that I searched high and low before I found them at MC, everyone was out...I originally ordered mine before XMas from Amazon and they kept delaying and delaying it. Sure they're on Ebay for 80 bucks plus a big reach around for shipping....Glad I found them when I did! I hope you're able to find them, they are worth their weight in gold in my opinion!

Just use rockets on WP1 and 2, GBU-12 on bridge and SAM at the tank waypoint, then let your wingman take out the rest of the tanks. (There's a 50/50 chance he'll die if you don't take out the SAM for him). Then use all 4 combined mavs on the column, and drop a GBU-38 on anything remaining. Pretty easy way to do it. I'll post a vid later.

The russians are using flight by wire too; some argue that it is not as advanced as for example the superhornet and f-22. I don't think that there is a way to make a mechanically operated f-22; why? for example if you look at the videos of the f-22 airhows you can see that when it turns the flaps go down depending on the aoa of speed; and they don't just go from up and down; the computers measures how much flap needs to be applied to give best performance; imagine if the pilot had to do that manually? Also what about those cool post stall maneuvers; the airplane would depart or flip if the pilot had to control it manually; you can tell for example when it does a tail slide; all the surfaces move to prevent a spin; imagine if you had to do it yourself. The raptor also uses the rudders to aid the pitch; I find hard to imagine how complex would be to produce the same system operated by the pilot and not a computer. Even the eagle has a computer to help move the airplane around. Just look at the old WWII fighter; most of them had to be operated with lots of care at low speed; most of them would go into a wing rock; some would do it suddenly; others would warn you. The problem is that pilots had to be very cautions trying to not get killed by their airplanes instead of fighting the enemy. What about the f-105 have you seen the sabre dance videos? flight by wire help you prevent that sort of situations; sometimes it also helps reduce airplane deficiencies or improve handling. My only problem with fly by wire is that if you loose your computer or if you experience a failure on your data censors you are in big trouble.

Truth be told, I wouldn't doubt it if the mean time between failures of the display were not even less than that. I don't have any information on that to prove or disprove, just saying that knowing what I do know it would not suprise me. And I think you are misinterpreting what he was saying. The change apparently coming to patch 1.08 is to rate the component failures on a percentage based on 200 hours. The CADC I will agree with...as I think most will that the failure rate was too high. Apparently ED agreed with this as well as it was discussed on the last page that the values were being adjusted. Some components have tendencies to have degraded failures while others have not so uncommon complete failures. The most commom would be an intermittant problem on both accounts. Many discrepancies would be to the effect of a display stutting off or blanking out, say three times in a flight. What unfortunately is not modeled is the ability to perform repair procedured in flight. Built-in test(BIT) or power cycles(off/on or resetting breakers in some cases) can trick systems to clearing internal faults and return them. This is unfortunately hit or miss and would be hard to code even though it would be nice to see. Following checklist items to re-bit something or having to cycle power is something that pilots go through all the time. This is how the real aircraft are. And what may seem like a "major" system to you is in fact a flyable condition in the real world. That display you may think you have to have and is really important, may in fact be a flyable write-up in some cases that may fly around without getting fixed for weeks at a time. You know what a pilot gets told when he gripes about it? You have two displays...use the other one. :) Degraded airplanes are what the Air Force thrives on. We have a PMC(partial mission capable) rate for a reason, because it's used all the time. I believe the A-10 MESL(mission essential systems list) is somewhere over on epubs. I will see if I can dig it up and post it on here to give you an understanding of what pilots have to go through on a daily basis and what they can be forced to fly with even with the jet not at 100%. You have to remember, you start up an airplane with the jet already at 100%. This isn't the case in the real world...systems are often already noted and previously identified for weeks at a time before they are fixed. I have plenty of flight hours. As stated before, it's based on a percentage of failure for a given number of flight hours. You are not guaranteeed a failure per so many flight hours. Preventative maintenance is tracked differently than scheduled maintenance. I am sure if you dug around enough you could probably find 4 and 8 hour fix rates for the A-10. These are fix rates only for aircraft that are identified as being broke out for unscheduled(not preventative) maintenance. The FMC rates that I had posted before are also a good indicator of this... And this is an opinionated response....where I have to completely disagree. Most, if not all, CADC failures that I have seen have been compelte failures. It usually either works or it doesn't. And granted the CADC is a normally reliable product in the F-15 world, it does go bad. But there again, I agree with the fact that the current ADC failure rate is too high. However, some of the other ones are highly reasonable. Are you basing thsi primarily on the ADC failures? Because it seems like most are. HUD and display failures are not that uncommon. Just like the real thing, you have to use what's available to you to continue on. That was a hypothetical number before I went scouring the net. FY 2010 was actually a good bit lower than that and in the low 70's. In Air Force terms...it's probably just making at at the acceptable level. But, if at any given time on avergage, you are only carrying 70% of your fleet at an FMC status...it shows you how big on a maintenance resource our aicraft really are. Again, this is an assumption. Having first-hand experience, I can tell you that you are a good way off in the way of thinking. I don't necessarily blame you. I thought the same thing before coming into the AF. I expected to see 50 wires total in an aiplane and it being spliced togeather with everday household wire nuts. That certainly wasn't the case. You may think that the failure rates should be higher, but in fact they are not that high. As an example, the mean failure time on a generator in an F-15 is only 200 flight hours. That means exactly what it says, over the average of the F-15 fleet, and main generator is only expected to last 200 hours. Some last more and some last less, hence your mean failure time average. And a gen is a pretty major system don't you think. As I say, things aren't always as luxurious as the seem or might appear...but they are what they are. Here is the opinion talking again. You are calling something wrong that you have no experience with or data to back it up. You are just saying that it's incorrect and someone's coding is at fault here. Just because you personally haven't read about it, doesn't mean you can viably take that and try to spin it into some factual information and claim what others have done is wrong. It doesn't work that way and no developer is going to listen to that. Or if they do, they are completely rediculous. Just because you THINK something is bogus or excessive, doesn't mean in fact that it really is. There is an old addage, assumption is the mother of all ****ups. Perhaps, and I can think of ways to agree or disagree with this. Do you know how many posts I can quote with folks wanting as high of a fidelity sim as possible? Yet, you want to be able to turn around and have an uninterupted flight where you never have to worry about a failure? If you want soemthing to simulate the real thing, this is what is included, like it or not. I can give you some advice then. You can keep on bitching all day long but you aren't going to change anything. You have to remember, you are the one kind of trying to demand that what's in here is wrong yet you cannot prove anything to back up these claims you are trying to make. So shouldn't it be you that does a little digging to come up with reasons to make a change? You already said that you have absolutely ZERO experience in this field, yet you are trying to get someone to believe you and make a change based on your opinions. That just sounds absurd and rediculous.

Merlin engine manufacturing step-by-step + contemporary static trial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzYxBbitP_s

The i7-920 could be o/c to a 3.8Ghz, which is what I had my other PC set at. provided you have a good cooler. I use a Thermaltake Ultra and a couple of fans, push - pull. To ensure your GPU is tuned up, I will recommend the Nvidia Inspector. Its superior to the NV control panel and easy to set up. It will provide all the optimisation you require for your GPU. here;- http://downloads.guru3d.com/NVIDIA-Inspector-1.92-download-2612.html Regards.

У меня есть более качественная версия, размер - порядка 250 Мб. Если что, лежит здесь: http://files.mail.ru/EU24SV

Ahh. No! It seems like you guys are getting me wrong. I had it printed for myself but was not too happy about the layout problem. That's the reason I'm selling it and that's not for profit, in fact it's half of the costs I paid for the printing! I don't see it as selling someone else's work, which I wouldn't do. But now it seems to be on it's way to the Netherlands anyway..

Новости по проекту "ОВ" Есть некотоыре новости по проекту "ОВ". Мы были вынуждены приостановить работы на следующей частью кампании. О причинах я написал на своём сайте. Не всё так страшно, как может показаться сразу. Надо подождать. Ознакомиться с вопросом и проблемами можно здесь. Спасибо за отзывы по рассказу "100 и 1 день войны". Да, согласен, было бы неплохо издать книгу вместе с выходом кампании "ОВ". Исследую этот вопрос. А пока, чтобы, как говорится, "подсластить пилюлю", предлагаю для чтения свежую (закончил всего несколько дней назад) повесть "Не говорите с луной". В содержании есть немного вертолётах. Ми-8. Повесть военная. Большей часть она является ответом на письмо одного из читателей "100 и 1 дня войны" в котором было указано, что автор излишне идеализирует современную армию... В качестве ответа написал эту повесть, чтобы можно было сравнить идеальность сегодняшней армии с той, которая была ислючительно идеальна в далёком 1993 году, почти двадцать лет назад. Итак, Таджикистан, 1993 год, таджикско-афганская граница... Приятного чтения.