Dudikoff

Well, one important parameter would be the resolution you're playing at? But, in general, the gain in FPS from 9900K CPU is probably mostly from to the higher boost clocks. Just overclock your CPU if really necessary and direct the saved money towards the 2080Ti.

It's working on my end, perhaps it was down temporarily.

T-72 turret roof armor over the crew area should be like 45 mm, the rear has like 65 mm. Supposedly the thickness of the hull roof over the engine compartment is 40 mm, but I'm not sure if that's valid for those big covers over it as well. As I couldn't find any ammo GAU-12 uses that can handle that, I wouldn't quite agree with your statement of it taking out T-72s.

I just glimpsed over the ideas and couple of questions spring to mind. Why wouldn't you mix a Ryzen CPU with an Nvidia GPU? Also, $500 AMD board? What for? As the AMD doesn't have a top-end GPU contender yet, how about a Ryzen 3700x and a 2080Ti with some mid-range board option?

This one would have been a far better joke (but I guess it was arranged).

There's also this tidbit, not sure if accurate. All Bradleys are amphibious. Earlier models are equipped with a water barrier, which is fitted by the crew before entering the water. A3 models have an inflatable pontoon which fits on the front and sides of the vehicle. Water propulsion is provided by tracks and the Bradley can attain a maximum speed of 7.2km/h in water. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

Well, while it does seem a bit odd, you won't see a Mi-28N or Ka-52 in the sim, so I guess this is the reason ED is considering going with the somewhat upgraded 'what-if' Ka-50 variant. Since mounting Igla's would be a pretty straightforward modification, I think calling it a fantasy is a bit too far. Do you also only play 100% historical missions/campaigns in the game?

It's not really ironic as it's a pretty different configuration. They're using a pusher prop to achieve much higher speeds so counter-rotating rotors make sense to maintain directional stability. What if they made such configuration optional so both camps would be happy? At least, I hope they'll do that.

The game certainly needs one as an AI at least, hope it gets finished and added.

Those were the MiG-23MS models, IIRC. The MLA should be lighter and more maneuverable, not to mention having a much better radar and weapons since the export MS models were severely dumbed down (they had MiG-21 radar and missiles, no RWR, etc.). So, while the quote "From a tactical fighter pilot’s point of view, the thing was a piece of junk." sounds just about right for the lowly MS model, the better variants are vastly more capable in comparison.

Thanks for the video, seems to be strong enough to handle the TM grip weight. But, IIRC, you would normally press and hold the trim button (which would disable the FF effects while held), move the stick to a new position and then release the trim button and the FF effects would come back and hold the stick in the new position.

Can you add changing the base device VID/PID to your software so a TM grip used on your base can be compatible with TM Target software? I've asked a few times, but didn't get an answer. I presume there are others who use Target exclusively with their TM HOTAS + Cougar MFD's and who would very much appreciate having this option. Also, can you post a video showing how your base handles a rather heavy TM grip?

Is there any info on if this range varies on the real thing? I mean, on the MiG-29/Su-27, you have to select the target size (small, medium, large) and this influences when the R-27 SARH seeker would go active IIRC. I'd expect something similar happens here, but it's automated presumably. It was probably discussed already, but I keep forgetting things, sorry.

Perhaps the AI is simply programmed to respond to a lock event regardless of the type. In that case a straightforward fix would be to expand that lock check to ignore an IR lock where no radar is used (e.g. in the case of short range EOS locks where laser is used to determine range). I'm interested if the same thing would happen if e.g. an Su-25 is used and locks on the target with R-60M missiles?

The price of a new Brunner CLS-E is like $1400 USD so they're almost in the same ballpark (I presume Brunner takes of the VAT when shipped internationally?). The Brunner seems like a safer choice, but being aimed at professionals, the software support for DirectX FFB was a problem before, not sure if that's changed? Given the similar price and presumed similar FFB experience, my preference would go to the base which provides the DX FFB support in drivers (so that it can be used in DCS without any hacks) and which can emulate TM Warthog base. It's expensive, but with those two conditions covered, I would start saving for it. @FoxHoundcn: Any chance of adding the TM Warthog Stick emulation to your drivers? Basically, it would just require an extra option to change the device VID/PID values to ones used by TM Warthog stick as mentioned in the link below. I'd presume the buttons from those sticks need to be mapped to DX buttons the same way TM maps them as well. https://forum.virpil.com/index.php?/topic/220-hybrid-t-50-base-with-warthog-stick/&tab=comments#comment-1411

Seconded. Plus, an option to keep TM Target compatibility like VKB drivers allow for their bases would be a major plus. Then I could have another base option for my TM setup and I could ditch the G940 for good. Never really bother getting it out given its lousy software.

That's interesting. I hope there's an upcoming video showing how it works.

Just to note that the RS FSSB R3 is for the Warthog. R1 and R2 are for the Cougar.

Yeah, it would have been nice if they could be used for the F-16 pre-purchase.

If you're on a budget, perhaps try buying a used card which is still under warranty. E.g. for the quoted 200 USD, you can get a used Vega 56 which will run circles over the 570. You won't get the most of it with that CPU, but still.

How much is the postage anyway?

I didn't say it lost that core capability, but that added value is already well covered by the late F-16 and F/A-18C, while flying the Tornado in its designed for way (80's low level) wouldn't be quite the same with upgraded cockpits of GR4 or what not.

They are quite different products, so it depends on which approach is more convenient for you.

I don't think Ka-52 was in any plans back then (some earlier post mentions a completely different helicopter intended for that role - the Ka-60 which I guess was never developed in that form). The Ka-50 was eventually authorized for operational service in the Russian Army (mid-90's), but luckily they didn't have money to produce it. I say luckily, because by that time it was obvious that a more sophisticated and a night-capable version was needed and testing of the Ka-50N showed that two-man crew was preferable for night ops, so Kamov decided to develop the Ka-52 on its own. IIRC, in late 90's the Russian Army chose the Mi-28N for the gunship role, but later on the Ka-52 was chosen by the special forces as their preferred support helicopter.

Hmm, I'm sure it wasn't like this before. Next mission phase would load up automatically if your mission score is over 50. Unless there are no phases here?