tflash

I really find Su-25T has still its place in the Ed series, so I would welcome FC3 very much. I'm a single player and more of a misison builder guy, but I constantly swap from FC2 to DCS A-10C tot DCS-BS(2), and try to make very similar missions in each game. Fun!

I now realize I was shooting from quite far (3 km), if it persists I'll make a track. While I was trying to record a track now I shot anything dead center, so I couldn't reproduce the error :=)

Am I the only one with the impression the gun now overshoots the target you are aiming at with the schkval? Didn't have that with BS1.

same here! BS2 is a blast!

Now we fully understand why they made a two-seat version! Instead of the missing Russian infantrymen, hopefully the next HOTfix is a model of this girl!

F-16 service life extended to cope with F-35 delays: http://bit.ly/uVQuUm I still hope they can start training on F-35 at Eglin, would bring the future at little closer by!

tragic! RIP

In FC1, you could exactly manage the appearance of the diamond. If you marked something as a target, it would automatically get the diamond, if not,there was no diamond. In FC2, the diamond appears whenever your wingman "sees" it with his Eagle eyes. Anyway the thing doesn't belong on the HUD, it is pure phantasy. In the A-10A, you could take it for a laser spot by a JTAC on the ground picked up by the pave penny sensor. But in the Russian planes, there should not be such a thing.

I must say that I still find flying the Su-25T in Lockon FC2 as challenging and dynamic as the DCS sims. The only thing that I cannot quite give a meaning to is the diamond that appears over target once detected by a wingman. In Multiplayer I don't think it is a problem, but in Single player you cannot get rid of it. What is worse, it often marks targets you're not interested in, eg a remote AAA while you are focussing on a tank column. And while I do not need DCS realism and Lockon is fine with me, I cannot imagine what reality is represented by this target diamond. Where the hell does it come from? Can I get rid of it somehow?

That must be one of the best Tornado pics ever! It made it to my desktop right away!

This was the article I was referring at: http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-helmet-display-bae/20216/ I have the impression work continues on the VSI helmet which will offer all the new functionalities of the F-35, like the full virtual view "through the aircraft".

Maybe they just mean it is not fully functional, but why then do they need the interim helmet from BAe systems?

The new BAe interim helmet for F-35: http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-helmet-display-bae/20216/picture/145521/ I wonder how they fly now, since there is no HUD and the helmet is not ready?

As I understood it, the production lines are still running (for export orders), but the USAF is indeed not buying anymore for about half a decade. In my - very humble - opinion that was a decade to soon. If the Taiwan deal doesn't materialize, F-16 production will effectively come to a halt.

I guess it would be very unwise to shut down the F-15, F-16 and F-18 production lines early. :=) The real solution to the 5th generation problems is to take the pilot out of the cockpit and make them UCAV's.

Belgian -16 solo display team

Great!!!!

Gosh, that's not good: http://rt.com/news/nato-missing-libya-weapons-875/

What are they wearing on the helmet?

I would call it a great welcome when senior forum members react to one of my first posts? On the issue itself I have the impression there are a lot of misconceptions about DCS:A10C. In many ways it does feel like FC3, in particular when you fly Su-25T and A-10A in FC. It is also absolutely not a difficult game to play, I really do not understand why some seem hesitant to adopt it. It amounts to the same thing as in FC: RTFM. DCS:BS is different imho since it is quite something else to fly a chopper instead of an airplane, and it can be damn hard to fly (still being a wonderfull sim). But DCS:A10C is really within reach of all FC players: it just takes a few more buttons and you are Go! Take for an example the startup: I just printed out a short checklist that some kind forum member compiled, I have it in front of me and I just hit the buttons and it was a done deal. After about 10 times I didn't need the paper anymore. So really what is the point? ED just kept developing state of the art sims, why would we complain about that? (The cockpit shadows eg are an absolute delight that you must experience, period.) I still fly Su-25T, A-10A and A-10C during the same evening, I often make the same mission in both sims.

Computing can't change physics, but smart computer assisted controls can get the optimum out of a wing + aileron +spoliers + slats + tailplanes + rudder + evt. canards. The aerofoil generated in flight is the result of the relative positions of all these controled surfaces, not simply the basic form of the wing. To put it simply: the F-16's wings are just flat, the bernouilli effects are generated by the leading edge flaps / flaperons, through FBW. As it happens, the F-35 has much more powerfull computers on board that calculate the optimal position of each surface continously during flight, as is the case with Typhoon. The flight envelope of modern jets is enlarged by new software releases, not by changes to the planforms.

Horrible catastrophy indeed! .

Take into account that the aerodynamic design of the F-35 is made with today's immense computing power, something not available in the time of Sprey and Wheeler. It is also an unstable, dynamic design. So I guess their F-105 comparison is a little simplistic. Let alone the teardrop comparison proposed in this thread.

I'ld like to get it up and running again on my rig, but no joy thus far. I loved the game!

You would need lock after launch capability, but I thought the Asraam has precisely that.