ARM505

I tested 40 MiG29's against 40 F15's (if I recall correctly, something like that). Initially, my pc (an older iteration admittedly) could only render the starting frame, which showed for about 20-30 seconds. Thereafter, I got about 1 frame every 5-10 seconds, and eventually the fps picked up to watchable levels at about 8 planes a side or so. I was amazed it didn't lock up solid initially. A good burn-in test for a system, thats for sure!

After a successful mission, all hardcore A10 pilots know the *proper* way to dismount....

Hey, thanks for the reminder! I've been meaning to ask: what does the IR jammer in the -T do to the EOS? Could you elaborate?

Yes, but apparently they all end in a heap at the end of the runway. ;)

Nah, it's a bland looking aircraft....thats said as an aircraft lover though, and of course it's just my opinion. As a warfighter (which I'm not, but if I was!), I would have to guesstimate that the F22 will no doubt take it. Slight coincidence, but I've just finished watching an episode of Top Gear where they compared the Ferrari Enzo to the F50 - Jeremy Clarkson ultimately came down on the side of the F50, saying something like "The Enzo is without doubt faster, but there are too many computers. The F50 is more fun!" And perhaps thats what gets people fighting - The F22 may win the fight, but IMHO it doesn't do it with panache or style - of course thats not what fighting a war is all about, but we are aircraft enthusiasts at heart, and for some the F22 just doesn't do it at all. So when some people constantly remind others that 'The F22 pwns everything, always, in all situations!', it just seems like baiting - and someone will always rise to take a bite.... Which reminds me, I was wondering - are people going to wax as lyrical about the combat abilities of the first UCAV into the air-to-air fight? IMHO the answer would have to be: hardly - whilst a UCAV may be able to utterly slaughter a manned fighter in the near future, it will be even more soulless (er, especially without a pilot!) than the F22. A clinical dealer of air-to-air death. But will it be beautiful as a piece of aviation? If you find function over form to be beautiful, then maybe. But for me, for all their limitations and faults, I still find aircraft such as the Su27, the Constellation, the Mustang, the Concorde etc beautiful. Something a UCAV (and the F22) just......aren't. IMHO.

As I understand it, IRL they cannot be changed. The colour that is. It's always green, except the Su25? Edit: Sounds like nscode has better info, thanks.

Awww, cute, the poor little B747 got a cold, so they put a blanket round it! :) Boeing want to build the B787's fuselage from composite materials don't they? And the (Raytheon?) Premier One bizjet has a composite fuselage too. Feels a bit odd when you tap it, but hey, it seems to work. Nonetheless, I agree IK, so far I haven't seen anything last like good 'ol aluminium. AND, some guy with his own two hands, a decent helping of skill, and a relatively low tech workshop can do real quality reskinning/fabrication work for aluminium aircraft. When the first tug driver backs into a 787, I want to see *those* repair costs!

F.A.Q., F.A.Q., F.A.Q.....How many times do I have to ask for it?!? :) Luckily, it's highly unlikely that the F22 will ever be involved in a major war with an equivalent force. ......which has the less happy byproduct of producing many more arguments just like this one. So, we will see this same argument or variations thereof for some time to come. The joy! I can hardly wait for the next one!

Whoops, no. In STT, or the Russian equivalent, the radar should follow to it's gymbal (sp? maybe gimble?) limits. Was thinking of the F15's TWS, but could be wrong there anyway. So, in STT, you have to move the aircraft to keep the tgt in 'sight'.

Not a flashing TD box, but a flashing target symbol maybe? If thats the case, it means the target is going out of gymbal limits or out the top/bottom of the scan zone. Adjust hdg left/right, or scan zone up/down. Something like that.

I cannot see how combining CFD and structural analysis has any bearing on desktop PC sims just yet. Both (but especially CFD) can be exceptionally demanding on processing power. By that I mean that some CFD computations would take a desktop PC days to work through. Not so good for the FPS! (it would have to be Frames Per Day or something like that!) Or have I missed the point?

Yes, and quite frankly I LIKE the fact that only existing models can be changed. I REALLY don't want another F4, ie to be able to play the latest version you need a degree course in how to install the sim, plus stay current on what versions of what you need (ie F4+1.08+FF1.xx+BMS2.058+Noddies weapon mod 1.224+Big Ears physics mod 2.785 + Wascally Wabbit Cockpit x^2*3 mod etc etc). I actually gave up on F4, it took too much work to operate the actual program, let alone the F16! Now I have F4AF and its patches, thats it. Let's keep LO simple.

Would anyone care to argue against my belief that Lockon would have a much stronger online following now, had dedicated server software been available for some time now? I must apologise, veering off the thread topic, but problems such as this (turbulence) could potentially be made easier to handle, and quite frankly, Lock On would have a bigger following today, and thus more sales.

In a massive newsflash, scientists discovered that air actually isn't always turbulent. It's like the sea - sometimes rough, but sometimes calm. Try to pretend it's a calm day when flying aircraft with SFM, and a rough day in the Su25's. :) I hope that is an acceptable solution for the meantime!

I think I'll stick to woman thanks! My wife is actually pretty tolerant, I was was saying that 'tongue in cheek' - I mean she lives with me screaming into TS until all hours of the morning, my computer has overtaken the study with a massive desk covered in Cougars, steering wheels, multiple pedals etc, the usual spaghetti nest of cabling all over the room, monitors lying around, various upgrades (read $$$) all the time etc etc. She drew the line at converting the spare bedroom though! I really can't complain actually!

Whoah!......Where on earth do you guys get the time, money, or space! Me being married rules this kind of stuff out...What is it about woman - I mean, they go on and on about understanding *their* needs, but when it comes to *my* (relatively simple) need to convert the second bedroom into a giant sim-pit it's a big NO NO NO! ;)

Seconded......except for moving targets! The -T makes those much easier!

In this day and age of fuel economy, I think they're going to have to work long and hard to make any QSST (at least a civilian alternative) an economically viable option. Current civil transport aircraft are pretty thrifty with fuel in the cruise, and with engines like the GenX on the way, it's only going to get better. Supersonic aircraft (especially those made to be quiet I would think) would probably need some aerodynamic compromises, which means you're no longer designing just for efficiency anymore.

Well, I think there's a difference between blast effect from your own weapons killing you, and an actual bomb falling into your cockpit! ;)

Is the argument here not actually missile *reliability* (ie some don't work at all IRL compared to all of them working in LOMAC) vs missile *effectiveness* (ie they don't guide/fuse properly in LOMAC compared to RL)? We don't have seperate sliders for those two parameters of course.

I find those aircraft also have dismal brakes. Are they that bad IRL? The parachute is a necessary option.

*Sigh* We REALLY need that F.A.Q. item stating the F22 pwns everything, always. Maybe we can add 'regardless of numbers' just to be clear too... ;)

Still, it's interesting, if quite biased and full of assumptions. If the numbers are right (I refer to the cost of the aircraft only now), I'd prefer 1800 F16's to 190 F22's!

Refer to this forum's FAQ, look under the rule "F22 pwns everything, always." E.O.D. ;)

Yeah, I only look at this kind of stuff when *really* bored :) http://www.break.com/index/declassified_russian_ufo_tape.html So, is that really from a MiG21 cockpit? Can anybody ID the seat? (*cough* ForceFeedback *cough*)