ARM505

Yes, I can see the obvious, thanks guys. So, if an SR71 dropped one, would that be somehow cooler? My point is that we all know the F22 is fast etc, and that the JDAM, if projected that far, can hit a target. Since the weapon bays were, by obvious deduction, designed to launch weapons, it's not extra special. It's like saying "Look, a Trident SLBM managed to launch some MIRV's through the stratosphere, and they did exactly what they were supposed to!" I'm being silly though. My apologies. It's impressive, just obvious I thought.

Er, shouldn't that read: JDAM scores direct hit in JDAM testing? ie What did the F22 have to do that was so special? Although going M1.5 at 50K, I suppose anything one step above a brick would make it that far....they need to add little wings for even more SO range!

Well, BVR is obviously a no-win against a Raptor - until they hobble them with a 'mandatory' VID pass to get positive ID that is! Or of course (as is statistically likely judging by the relative prevalence of fractricides in modern warfare), you're going to get some more 'victories' by F22's over F15/16/18's/Blackhawks etc, only actual shootdowns instead of simulated! I think there's minimal flames nowdays with these 'F22's pwn all' threads because it's difficult to argue that the F22 doesn't, in fact, pwn everything. Exscuse the 'pwn'ing. I do like the comment by the SAAF oke at the end: Tough day? "I think a very short day". LOL!

As far as my hazy ground school memory goes, dynamic or static stability is either positive, neutral, or negative. Without waffling on about the physics, an aircraft can certainly have positive dynamic stability (ie the oscillations reduce in amplitude over time). I've seen it happen in Cherokee's, Cessna's etc (despite the students best efforts to mis-trim the plane!). I haven't had a chance to do that experiment in a B737, I don't think the pax would be so happy with the ride, and the cabin crew would hate me for all the vomiting....Still, most planes are designed to be dynamically stable - I'm not so sure how keen the FAA/CAA would be to certify an aircraft in the public transport category that was dynamically unstable, or 'divergent'. The Su25 seems to be a fairly benign sub-sonic design, so I reckon it could end up stabilised at it's trimmed speed, assuming it had enough altitude/time to play with, and the initial entry wasn't at wildly crazy pitch attitudes etc. We'd need a real Su25 pilot to do a little hands on experiment for us though!

It's called a 'damped phugoid' if I remember correctly, ie the aircraft is dynamically stable, and oscillations about the lateral axis (in this case) and above and below the trimmed speed become smaller over time. The aircrafts static and dynamic stability all contribute to this behavior. Perfectly possible, until the aircraft runs out of fuel of course, or one of the oscillations brings it plummeting into the ground.

I don't think it made any pretences about being a sim - it was clear it was a chase cam consoly thing from the start, and hence worthy of avoidance, from my side.

How on earth would the Iranians provide service and support to F16's? Surely that would make them dependant on American goodwill to a certain degree? Having the aircraft is one thing, keeping them in decent condition is quite another...(how are their F14's doing?)

Seriously?!?! Get them both and play them, I doubt you'll be sorry. It's supposed to have some sort of DC, but there aren't too many details yet that I'm aware of. I'm really looking fwd to this one, local online play (for us people on the other side of the planet) is great, thanks (in part) to DEDICATED SERVER SOFTWARE. HINT HINT.... (Bats head against apparent brick wall)

Go for a flip in an Extra, Su29 (Su29 in this case) etc with a previous national aerobatic champ who basically says "Ok, I'm practicing my routine for the national championship. You're along for the ride. I don't care how you feel, I have to practice and finish my routine...." No G-suit. Roll rates of nearly 400 deg/sec apparently (too busy holding on to count), although it feels like your neck will snap off because the rolls start and stop almost instantly. No gentle lead in to the high G manoeuvres, they start and stop instantly. Ow, ow ,ow, ow. It hurts. I realised I had discovered the most expensive form of masochism on the planet. I did some nice aerobatics in a Harvard (Texan to the Yanks), that was much more fun!

Does anyone have a link to download that one - I want to enjoy this one for a while! I already have the one with the female Dutch reporter who does the whole F16 thing, including centrifuge! Hilarious! Lots of throwing up. She wasn't feeling too happy with things as well.

Yeah, I played 'Black' the other day on the PS2 - first (and last) FPS I'll play on a console. How ANYONE can play an FPS properly with those controllers is beyond me. My favourite though, is when console players seriously try and say they're just as good for FPS's as a mouse! I suppose all those pro gamers who play for money on the PC just haven't seen the light yet.... And, much as Gran Tourismo is made out to be some kind of simulator, I'm sorry - GTR/LFS etc kick it's butt in the 'simulating' department everytime. Thats not to mention the hectic online racing....

Whatever you say dude, I can see a lot of thought and research went into that one....I suppose Xbox "palyer's" are all born gifted, as you no doubt are. So, in conclusion (to stay in the spirit of your post) - "My dad can beat up your dad!"

Do you work for microsoft or something? So, according to you - I, and plenty of other people have somehow 'tweaked' our machines so as to be both less stable, and (incredibly) slower as well?! And if I did indeed have a cheap and dilapidated machine (which I don't), I would hardly expect it to run the game, which is a brand new release, at very high fps now, would I? You don't think perhaps they just made some poor choices with their method of rendering to turn the game into a system hog? Especially since other modern games run very well on my computer? As for trashing the PC, I would have to be an imbecile of the highest calibre to follow your advice and 'trash' the machine that I use for browsing the net, playing a HUGE variety of simulators (Lockon, IL2 FB+PF, Steel Beasts, F4AF etc), games (too numerous to mention), utilities (Autocad, 3DS, my electronic logbook), doing email etc. Of course with these sims etc I can also use advanced controllers (Cougar et al, my Logitech MOMO FF racing wheel). When is the Xbox getting something equivalent to the Cougar? What could the Xbox possibly offer me to replace all that? That's apart from the fact that PC games traditionally have more depth, as the previous GR did, hence the expectations for this release, and that is what PC gamers expect. I suppose you think that had they used the exact same AI programming on the Xbox version of GRAW, it would somehow have been superior to the PC versions AI? Again, you don't think maybe this has NOTHING to do with the platform, and more to do with programming shortcomings? I'm sure you've also noticed that the Xbox and PC versions of GRAW are actually totally different. I do not want the Xbox version at all - I wanted what I thought the PC version offered, namely more plausible realism. As it stands, it is not to my liking due to AI and interface shortcomings. And yes, I also resent the simplification of games to allow cross platform releases. I recently got a PS2 (for free, the only way I would accept it). I have yet to find any title I find truly entertaining. Why would I want (for example) GT4 when I have GTR (or GTL for that matter) on the PC, with so much more depth of simulation? I don't mind the console's existence, and I'm certainly not going to engage in the 'PC vs console' debate. But for you to say I should 'trash the PC' is inane, when clearly it is the solution for the multitudes of things *I* want to do with it, almost none of which can be done by an Xbox of any kind. And, once again, your logic regarding 'tweaking' is ridiculous.

Didn't the -229 have radar absorbent paint or something like that as well? (Or was supposed to have when produced). Apart from using a great deal of wood in the construction as well - primitive stealth! So maybe it's a grandfather in more ways than one...

MSFS is essentially just a 'chassis' for the better addons nowdays. All of which are payware of course. So, it's good that the terrain is so nice I suppose. It can get really expensive though if you see a lot of stuff that you want. P.S. Here's a link to a video of some of that stuff, including some elephants (briefly) walking around: http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/c/1/ac1c12d9-e5ea-4e43-8444-183d27200428/FlightSimX_streamHI_615k.wmv

It's definately not like BF2 or those games. Still, I find the enemy AI to be waaaaay too good. I could be lurking in the shadows, 200m down the road from a guy - I poke my head out 5 cm to see him, and BANG! Bullets rain down with phenomenal accuracy within milliseconds. So basically this Mexican Army guy standing in bright sunlight, with no reason to be looking in my direction, has seen me, classified me as a bad guy, and started to deliver EXCEPTIONALLY accurate fire, all within less than a second. Bottom line - its VERY hard. Beyond an entertaining challenge, it's utterly frustrating. AND of course, we get to deal with 'save point's', the crutch of the feeble game designer. Or console idiots - note to game designers: PC's HAVE HARD DRIVES, AND HAVE DONE SO FOR A LONG TIME! So, you'll end up hearing 'Mitchell, whats your status!', a million times over from the cliched CO type - why does he do that?!!? My status is that I'm dead! Is he blind!? Why does he ask that the second that I die!? Over, and over, and over, and over again. It's a pain to play... (Cue silly people saying 'Oh, but you're not using the right tactics, you suck etc) I'm sorry, but the enemy AI is just way too omniescent (hope thats the right word). Try the night level - while we're walking around with night vision equipment, the AI can still see you basically instantly. MAAW (Mexican Army Advanced Warfighters) troops must have nano-implants or something..... I would far rather play this game through with a cheat or something - it would be more entertaining (the reason I play after all), than dying a million times over. Oh, of course once you've played it through, thats it. There are no 'sandbox' type tango hunts or anything like that - it's campaign, or multiplayer, and thats it. Not even training missions. They've resorted to the usual 'teach the player how to use his equipment on the first mission'. As if they would send somebody in without EVER having used that gear..... MP is supposed to be a bit of a joke. For example, if the team leader dies, thats it - mission over! I haven't played MP though, and won't, so I won't comment further on that. It's also a crushing system hog, and you can't use anti-aliasing because of the system of gfx rendering they've chosen to use. So, you end up playing at low resolutions, with hideous jaggies everywhere. Why, oh why, did they CHOOSE to negate one of the greatest advances of modern 3D gfx cards? Obviously higher resolutions are available, but be warned that you need the absolute pinnacle of modern computers to even have a chance at getting playable fps, IMHO. The team AI is commendable in some situations, but hair-pullingly retarded in others. For example, when rounding a corner and coming face to face with an MG nest, they would rather stand there saying 'Captain, I've been hit!' than actually take cover and return fire. So you have to shepherd them around with the tactical map the whole time - giving orders via the first person menu just results in them doing something unexpected or totally inane (covering the wall next to them while bullets rain down on you for example). So, if you're keen, wait and see. If you're in two minds, leave it - there are better ways to blow time and money on games. I could go on, but I won't. It could be a great game, with the emphasis on realism, but as it stands now it's an exercise in frustration for me.

It's wrong to assume that the military doesn't like to share - look at Steel Beasts PRO PE. It was never actually going to be released, it was to be made purely as a training tool for military applications - but fans (myself included) were very keen on getting SOMETHING before the long awaited Steel Beasts 2, so it was released with it's high price tag (125 USD). Upgrades and enhancements are driven by military client requirements, so it's often seen on the forums that somebody would love to have a certain feature (functioning tank suspension was a recent example), but there are higher priority updates required by military clients, so our little wish list waits. It's a fantastic sim, and I'm really glad they got it out to us as well. So, the bottom line - the military are actually not as demanding and whiny as us, but they do demand accurate systems modelling of those that are modelled. Judging by SB Pro PE, not all systems have to be modelled, as long as the principles are correct and bad habits can be minimised or eliminated. Unless it's classified, there's no reason why we can't get the same product - but don't expect modern graphics etc, these just aren't as important to them.

Like I said earlier in this thread, adding the physics cards with their support DROPS fps in the current uses - all the cans etc bouncing around still need to be RENDERED by the gfx card to actually be displayed, hence the drop - it's yet more polygons for the GPU to push... Basically all GRAW uses the physics for is better 'eye candy' (more cans/debris bouncing around) - they know they can't make it an integral part of the game yet (unlike modern gfx cards) because nobody has them. Therefore they had to make having one a 'bonus'.

Yeah, like BF2, except you would need to actually know what you're doing in each type of vehicle! ie Somebody who calls themselves a 'pilot' in BF2 (grrrr, makes me irritated!) would actually need to know at least one iota of information about flying!

Air combat manoe...manoeu....manuv.....dammit! It's a system of telemetry that records aircraft position in a designated area, and allows the simulation of missile firings etc. It records all of this for post flight debriefing and playback. There is a link to some more info on this on the above mentioned site (I at least managed to get that far). Something like that. IMHO all sims should have it built in. To have something like this available for Lock On would be very, very nice. So...is it?

..and Steel Beasts AFV simulation...

My ability to speak French has escaped me....how do I download this? Or is it not ready for the world yet?

Will the pedals be useable for racing sims? I really need to simplify the underdesk chaos (currently old CH pedals into the Cougar, which removes their ability to be used for race sims, and logitech MOMO pedals which are utterly crap)....I know CH pedals can. I know it's supposed to have toe brake functionality, but will that make for a precision throttle/brake pedal setup?

If I had to have a plane in my hangar to throw around the sky over weekends, I know what it would be... (Clue: NOT an F22 ;) )

Having just got GRAW (a frustrating game if ever there was one) I read some tweak guides since I couldn't get anti-aliasing to work (turns out it doesn't, and never will in GRAW). In one of them they mentioned that frame rates would actually DROP with the physics card! The theory went something like this: More pieces of debris etc would be allowed and calculated for, BUT these objects would then have to be displayed: therefore extra work load for the gfx card! Doh! And it's not like GRAW isn't a crushing system hog as it is - it's harder to get playable fps in that than in Lock On! All it seems to do is relieve the CPU of some newtonian physics type calculations - I'm not really sure how much a flight sim could make use of it, unless you want to blow up buildings brick by brick. But what developer is going to code that level of detail?