Avimimus

Any word if the fusing system in loadouts will extend to the FC aircraft? One of the issues with the A-10A and Su-25 (etc.) is that we have to use default release altitudes for cluster bombs... when we should be able to at least adjust them on the ground. The same goes for the KMGU I believe? Shouldn't we be able to set the release interval? I'm just glad that MAC won't be an arcade game and that FC is getting some continued support. I think there is potentially a large customer base for fidelity without the cold-start circuit breaker level of detail (which is great, but not as accessible, and not always what one is in the mood for). I also like the idea of possibly being able to get some aircraft which are too classified or are missing documents for full fidelity (e.g. later Sea Harriers as a good example)... so it is nice to see the possibility being at least open.

I'd actually pay almost as much for an FC style module than a full-fidelity one - mainly because I want to enjoy the experience of flight, but I don't have the time to remember that many switches on more than a few aircraft. I'm fine with learning switchology and start-up procedures for my favourite plane - but I don't have the time for evertyhing - especially aircraft I'm not as much of a fan of... so I haven't bought several modules! I'm hoping more aircraft will get FC versions - as I'd definitely be willing to pay a lot more. I also wonder if FC versions of some classified aircraft might be possible someday? Su-30 perhaps?

Can't one use primaries against small ships? They might not be the priority, but they are still viable targets. Didn't Tirpitz destroy an X-Craft using its main battery?

I'm increasingly interested in the R-60 (not M) and R-13 tail chasers... could be quite interesting. I do hope some earlier/export weapons are included!

Hello everyone, So, my controllers have a bit of an odd setup: One of the MCG hats is bound to RZ The MCG twist axis is bound to Z The STECS throttle axis is bound to one of the rotors, and the throttles themselves are bound to X and Y. Throttle axis are inverted Is this normal? It seems like an odd default setup. Also, does anyone have a template or tutorial for re-assigning the axis in the joystick software? Some older games don't allow rebinding the axis within the games themselves, so not having the axis defaults be more normal renders the stick unusable.

It'd be interesting to see how the Mil Mi-2 (URP?) would compare... definitely the lowest power-to-weight ratio of the small helicopters, but with a relatively larger rotor disc.

Well, the 'I suspect' should make anyone reading what I wrote suspicious of it. I know that the developers stated at one point that the SMEs had recommended the Mi-24P. It might have been on the Russian part of the forum - that statement is definitely somewhere on these forums if you look for it. The fact about the Kord is supposition though. They did say that it was chosen because it was more effective, but I don't know if the SMEs recommended it.

I suspect it was the SMEs: They talked to actual Mi-24 crews who said that the P variant with the Kord was much preferrable from the operator's perspective. It definitely leaves open the option for them to sell an earlier period Mi-24 later.

Hmm... well the Ka-52 can carry additional weapons and the fire control system allows asymmetric loadouts.

Well, FC4 isn't going to happen - but one can think of it as taking over an AI aircraft for use in 'aggressor' training? Alternatively, one can just not use them or can exclude them from server lists!

In the trailer they show it carrying them. In the released version we are limited to V20 pods.

...or the Mi-24P with B8 pods

Su-7B seems to be a gap.

Well we did call them 'widowmakers' for a reason. I didn't know we used Giant Tiger liveries though!

Thank you! I really appreciate this input.

Hello, I'm thinking of trying a gamepad/game controller. However, years of using sim hardware mean that I've always dismissed these entirely (for all purposes). I'm used to the precision of a full sized joystick! What are the most precise gampads? What am I most likely to actually be willing to give a chance (if I were to try it)?

Yes, I know, but, well, two things: 1) A gun which is prone to failures is dramatic (and fun in a sim, if not in real life) 2) When flying as the gunner and looking through the site... I've often had a truck lined up in the scope... and being able to squeeze a trigger... well, I think it would be very useful for taking out two or three soft-skinned vehicles in a single pass. Even if the gun jammed shortly after, it provides a close range flexible firepower that could be very useful. The number of times I've wished I had a Yak-b with just 100 or 200 rounds of ammunition is considerable... so I think it has value.

It'd be great if they offered an Mi-24V module with the release of the Afghanistan map (or at least offered an earlier Mi-24P). I think there is enough to motivate a paid upgrade given the pair of PKT gunners, the MDB-4 FAB-100 combination, UPK-23-250 (export variants), and more S-5 rocket warhead variations... it could be quite attractive. But I've probably said that before

Yes, definitely. I'm just hoping that one of the modules announced will be a license for one of these teams Also, are you sure the IA-58 isn't further along? I was under the impression that the external model and the cockpit were nearing completion.

If the Mig-23ML sells well enough, then maybe...? They do share some systems in common, so it might also have somewhat faster/cheaper development.

I've wondered if the IA-58 will come ahead of the A-29? I recall one of the devs saying that the systems on the IA-58 are much simpler than on the A-29, and that the major effort would be modelling the dynamics of a turboprop. The IA-58 artwork is also further along. So I was wondering if the IA-58 might leapfrog the A-29 to completion? There are at least two dev teams which have made considerable progress towards a Su-22, so it is just a matter of one of them getting a license. As for the Iskra, it isn't being released as a mod but it is being developed without the full SDK by a team which intends to pitch it a full-fidelity module. The systems modelling seems relatively far along and the 3d model looks pretty good. So, I could see them also getting a license. Of course full release for any of these would likely be a year or more away (the possible exception being the IA-58, given that Razbam has more resources). But I could see a couple of them having licenses announced in the new year. P.S. If anyone hears rumour about the other angry tadpole - i.e. a PZL Mi-2URP... let me know

I like that velociraptor purr it does!

Thank you!

I'm hoping the IA-58, Iskra, or Su-22 will be in the module announcements this winter... Out of all of the trainers, the Iskra is the one I want... angry little tadpole... and the team pitching it seem to be pretty competent.

So far as I can tell there might be a slight benefit to conventional (forward-aft) rudder pedals in that they have a larger travel so that precise inputs can be made with larger movements. In contrast vertically moving rudder pedals require smaller movements. Is this true? Does anyone know if this makes a difference (e.g. for precision in hovering a helicopter)? Other than that: It appears that conventional pedals can allow toe breaks, whereas 'anti-torque' pedals can be made lighter and more compact without needing to be attached to anything (and can be used more easily on a swivel chair). P.S. I'm looking at VPC WarBRD Rudder Pedals vs. VKB-Sim T-Rudder Pedals Mk.V - so if anyone has comments on those two, I'd be happy for any advice.