ARM505

Yes, of course, but they'll need to sell one of those 25 mil aircraft you work on and take the cash! ;)

A drone carrying explosives.....hmmm.....I've got a new name for it - I'm going to call that a 'missile' - Just remember, I thought of that first!

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify - I took the word 'hype' to have a negative connotation. I'm sure they'll advertise it of course, which is to be expected.

Just regarding that ridiculous water colour, I'm not sure what planet the FS guys are from, but their oceans seem to consist of giant vats of blue ink, not actual water. I saw this in the screenshots (from ages ago) yet they never seem to change the obvious faults, do they? I suppose they like to keep the free/payware scenery modders in business....

You can't really compare MS to ED: MS - Giant, globe spanning company, *plenty* of people - basically one giant software and hardware selling machine. ED - Some guys (like, ten? Maybe a few more?) in Russia. So, to say that they should try and hype it up a bit - well, maybe they're just a little busy right now, huh? Plus, sims like this don't respond well to hype - they're so complex, and even seemingly small features take a long time to implement and test, that all you do is disappoint people when you finally do release them, if they're overhyped.

Lean forward in your seat. Recentre TrackIR. Lean back. :)

I'm a real pilot - the Su25 basic and T have excellent feeling flight models. (My highly scientific input there, LOL :) ) I get the feel FO is being made out to be some kind of simming nirvana by some here - who in their right mind thinks it won't have numerous faults, just like any other sim ever released? Who thinks their own pet problems with it will be instantly attended to by the developers? Looking eternally forward to some mythical (at the moment), supposedly ultra hardcore product, when you have LO right here, right now......well, lets just say I'm enjoying moving mud in the Frogs, trapping in the Su33, etc etc.....right now.

Well, it's been working ok for a few games now, (including ours last night, thanks!), so I'm holding out for some success. Don't know what I did though!

Er...will Microsoft just give out the beta? I take it that there'll be some kind of time limit or something like that?

Hmmm, a Steel Beasts tank lurking in the grass there - do you guys host SB at some times? I'm looking for some multiplayer action for that ultra-rare sim (at least down here) that isn't at 3 o'clock in the morning for me!

Wow, that gives new meaning to the term 'hot ship'! I used to fly a 425 (a 1, with the stock motors, -114's I think? -117's?, not sure anymore. I remember there was a -135 engine mod that upped things quite considerably!), nice little pocket rocket. But not one that hot - The panel must have just about been melting! The poor little aircon would never have coped!

There's no other BS to harp on about..... :)

To trim (any aircraft I have flown, without FCS trim, or 'flightpath stability' kind of trim), quick and dirty: 1) Use stick to hold aircraft in correct flight attitude for phase of flight (climb, descent, cruise, whatever) - don't worry if you get the attitude wrong, you can adjust it, and you will get better at judging it with experience. 2) Check parameters stable (airspeed, vertical speed etc), or close enough to stable (ie not making rapid changes). The important thing is to hold the pitch/roll attitude. 3) You'll no doubt be having to apply pressure to the stick to hold the aircraft in that attitude - NOW USE TRIM. Trim using small measured changes, and allow time to check the effect. You should be able to take your hand off the stick, and the attitude should not change appreciably. Practice this with wings level, because trimming the rudder/ailerons for steady state turns is a bit unecessary. 4) Monitor airspeed etc and readjust aircraft attitude, then retrim. Again, hold the attitude as accurately as possible, THEN trim for hands off flight. Try to AVOID the common mistake, which is when people end up trying to actually fly the aircraft with the trim, ie make pitch changes with the trim and not the stick. Examples: A climb - from steady state level flight, raise the nose to what you imagine is the climb attitude, and set climb thrust. Hold the aircraft in your selected attitude, allow parameters to stabilise (You could judge the correct thrust/pitch attitude such that the airspeed does not change for example). Apply trim to hold this attitude, so that even with your hand off the stick it stays there. Monitor, and adjust. Levelling off from a climb: Approaching the planned level off altitude (how much before depends on vertical speed, power, airspeed, etc, use experience as you get better as a guide), lower the nose attitude smoothly (to maintain the target altitude) to obtain the desired level flight attitude. Set cruise thrust (again, just judge it, experience will help). Allow airspeed to stabilise. Hold attitude and trim so that you are no longer required to hold the stick to maintain the attitude. Monitor and adjust attitude to maintain altitude. Hold the new attitude and retrim. Thats the basics, more or less. Experience will show you the correct settings, and of course you can start applying small amounts of trim sooner whilst changing attitude to help you. Remember, don't fly the plane with the trim, just use it to reduce your workload (ie stick forces), thats what it's there for. Pitch trim in simulators is a tricky thing - IRL it's a little smoother and easier, the aircraft tends to settle nicely into a steady state a little more naturally.

No, it would appeal to far more people than a Ka50, you're right, not just people who frequent these forums - but then who would make the Ka50? ;) You see, there are plenty of people who want F-XX's, which means that *eventually* somebody will make them (maybe not right now, but it will happen, again and again and again!) But, like I said, rare birds don't get made - I'm glad that one (the Ka50) will now at least see the light of day.

P.S. Lo and behold! An F15C, in Janes IAF http://www.flightsim.com/review/iaf/f15c130.jpg Now, who said that it hadn't been modelled in the last ten years? Ah, D-Scythe!: "Name one flight sim in the past decade that has featured either the A-10 or the F-15C. Oh yeah, that's right - none." I claim a very small victory :) But yeah, it's never been done in high-fidelity, and it's current iteration in LOMAC leaves something to be desired, I know. I am with you on this one, really. I just understand ED's priorities, and the limitations they face. Also part of my point - if the desire to see these aircraft modelled is great enough (ie a large enough market), then why have so few Western developers taken up the challenge lately? I asked if the western financial model (or something like that) precludes producing such small, niche sims.

Yes. I agree. Nonetheless, an F/A-18 is not being added. Thats my point. I have been here a while. I have seen the constant requests for an F/A-18, and the associated carrier ops. Again, despite all this, an F/A-18 is not being added. What I'm saying, is that ED does not have endless resources and the ability to add everything that everybody wants, and that constant requests on the forums do not have influence regarding such major planning decisions. I respect them for sticking to their guns. Plus, I feel that aircraft like that (the F/A-18 and F16 specifically) have been done before in depth (Janes F/A-18, plus some others, F4, F4AF etc), and I welcome the difference involved in learning the Russian concepts and systems. I hope I have made a clear enough point - if not, the fault is my own. In any case, I will give it a rest. (Edit: Or not, as seems to be the case!)

No, its a company that makes anvils..... (And rockets, roller skates, explosives etc!)

Perhaps I should have been more specific then - A10 (not that I said it had been done) or F15C, no (F15E yes, although it's quite substantially different, sure) - but the F16 and F18 (both mentioned as repeatedly requested) have been done several times. Did Janes IAF not have an F15C by the way? (Not sure, never owned the game) And Cali, the mere fact that I question producing an F16 or F18 sim, as well as the fact that they're NOT producing them yet should tell you that not 'everyone' (as you said) wants them *just yet*. Sure, if ED had a million programmers beavering away, they'd probably love to do everything. But right now they choose to cater to their chosen market, the Russian audience. Everything else is a bonus. Make no mistake though, I would rather have what is there functioning 100% - so I am on the side of people who want the F15 changed for realities sake, regardless of whether it would "cut the MiG-29A/S and Su-27S to pieces if modelled to its full spec", to quote D-Scythe (I won't attempt to argue that point, it's been done before here, despite not quite agreeing with that generalisation.) But I think they can only do so much with the resources available to them. I know some people think that modelling the Ka50 cuts down on the potential sales - but I respect their decision to do what they feel is important. And we are short heli sims IMHO. And my question still stands regarding American/Western developers. If people (everybody!) wants to see F/A-XX;s modelled, why is there no truely modern sim (barring the not yet released Fighterops) that covers these aircraft?

Because YET another F-XX sim is yawnsville city. (Dons flame retardent suit, turns on air bottle valve...) Ok, that was an obvious wind-up, but seriously, I like the obscure/historically less covered stuff (and others seem to as well) - I mean, who else is going to do it? And they are Russian, after all. Doesn't America produce any people who can program sims that cover American equipment? Or has America evolved financially into a place that can only produce for consoles, or other higher yielding markets? Just thinking - My favourite sims (I'm using the term to mean something that makes a definate attempt to simulate reality, although nothing can quite do this of course): Tanks/armoured vehicles - Steel Beasts (A lot of Germans/Europeans there, not sure who actually own Esim though) Aircraft (WW2): IL2 - Russian (Modern): LOMAC - Russian (Modern Civil): MSFS (American), which I admit I almost never play anymore, it just seems to lack the feel of IL2 or LOMAC. I do use it for playing around with systems though, ie the LDS 767 or PMDG 744 etc. Perhaps I should note here how keen MS is to try and market the 'fun' aspect of flight sims in there next release, FSX (with 'missions' etc). Perhaps an indication that they feel flightsims are too 'niche', and need to be made more exciting to capture a competitively large audience? Plus, nowdays, EVERYTHING decent for MSFS, from terrain textures to aircraft to scenery, and even different weather modelling is payware. Infantry (even combined arms!): OFP (Czech?), with Armed Assault on the way. So, we're waiting (and have been for a while now) for Fighterops I guess as the 'American' contender. I'm not knocking America, but I just get confused when a lot of people clamour constantly for American hardware, and question the developement of, for example, the Ka50, from a Russian developer. I do like the idea of viable opposing forces though, my only reason for personally complaining about the F15's current rendition. It should be obvious that all of this is my PERSONAL OPINION, and will obviously be different to everybody else's. Nonetheless, it seems to me that America is no longer able to produce quality sims (but can produce FPS's by the truckload) that have a relatively low sales volume, and sustain the quality product support that these require. I'm happy that others have stepped up to the plate. ED seems to be keen on the Russian market, and it should come as no surprise that they will produce software that focuses on that equipment surely?

...a functioning F15?

I'll second that - despite the graphics, SB1 is still a better simulator, and more fun than a lot of other stuff out there. Of course, SB Pro PE is light years ahead in the graphics, but it's the same game at heart. If you're looking for a good tank sim, this is the ONLY option.

http://www.steelbeasts.com Brilliant.

Yeah, like I said - Not sure. Nonetheless, it only does it when FC does the initial SF check, and nowhere else, on no other game that I use TS with. Soundcard works 100% all the time with everything else too. Still, I can't be sure, the usual bane of SF complaints. You can never be 100% completely sure that it was *definately* SF, and all pro SF people ALWAYS bring this up. So thanks for the obvious rebuttal, I guess if you hadn't said it, somebody else would have. No, it's not that, I know what you mean - the sound does sometimes 'break up', but ALL my transmissions become a digital sounding scrambled noise. I can still hear everyone fine though. As I said, it might not be SF. But based on the time at which it occurs, I suspected it was. And, as I said again, it only happens to me, and none of the other guys I fly online with.

I have a small problem which I assume is SF, not sure though - if I have Teamspeak running as I start FC, everything that I say becomes scrambled. I can still hear everyone else. This only happens to me, nobody else seems to have the problem though. One other problem, but I can't say whether it's SF or not, so I won't mention it.

Liking Lock On, and yet not buying FC (or BS now).....I still don't understand this.