Sharpshooter

So the Su-30 really was the Su-27 but double-seat ? If it was being developed then it must have something new, what is it ?

If I could ask only one question, it would be: Does the Kutznetsov even carry some A2G ordenance for their Su-33s ? I think that if someone could answer that question we would know if the Su-33 was intenden for some emergency A2G mission or if it was not intended to fulfill that task at all. Sorry if this has already been answered, I try to read all posts :)

You have to ask AWACS, or guess :)

Maybe I´m the only one surprised by this statement, I thought that the west hadn´t looked at the Su-27 more than in photographs or airshows. Or at least, nothing they would publically admit. Never heared of it. Still its weird. Is your source secure? The source is your source. Look under customers, it´s the last line.

Anyone knew about this ??? Maybe I´m the only one surprised by this statement, I thought that the west hadn´t looked at the Su-27 more than in photographs or airshows. Or at least, nothing they would publically admit.

I think this is different, you will see the card on the shelves at the end of the year. Even if this card doesn´t hit it, I´m sure another will pop up, some competiton must be already developing a similar type of chip.There are some major investors in this and the Unreal Engine 3 is using this technology. Plus the chip already saw action on an expo, I don´t remember which. Defenetly we won´t see on 1.2, I´m talking about the LO:MAC succesor. To me the possibilities that this card doesn´t hit the shelves are slim and none.

Not off the programmers, but off the CPU... :D Wouldn´t it be from both ? It seems to me that there has to be some standarized dev tool to use the PPU. It should take some workload off since the PPU should do automatically some kind of math operations (perhaps differentation or integration as GGTharos said) since that`s what it is there for, and that´s what it was designed for (physics specific calculus). Otherwise it would be like another CPU. I´m just guessing since you are the dev.

Who would have known that the answer is just on it´s way ? Take a look at this: http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?p=47586#47586

Terrific Idea !!! If we have a Processing Unit for Graphics, why not for the growing factor of realistic physics ?. Takes workload off the programmers :)

Let´s wait for the final version of 1.1, MAYBE that performance is caused by somekind of other problem that has already been fixed. If the final turns out to be that way, then ED will hear some complaints.

a hundred percent agree. Marketing stuff is always optimistic, otherwise it wouldn´t sell, and that´s the whole purpose of marketing anyway. I was considering the opinion of the pilot buddy of ruggbut and I thought: How many 120s would a real pilot have seen fired in it´s career ?, probably against drones. Maybe he saw like 5 120s fired and they all hit (assuming he didn´t fire against a real life maneuvering target that are on extinction nowadays). So he said this "real life" hits plus all the papers from the Airforce that say it´s a killer missile, then it must really be a killer missile. But then how many virtual 120s fired we have seen ? I´m thinking of hundreds, and I have seen a lot hit, and I have seen a lot that have been fired when they shouldn´t have, and I ´ve seen some impressive maneuvers trash the missile. But then maybe I am wrong, and a few minutes from now someone comes very angry and proves all I´ve said is BS.

I agree with you, the 120 can be defeated. But how would you make the 120 better, tell us that, not that the 120 doesn´t hit enough times or that it isn´t invincible. Tell us you identified the problem with the missile and are asking for it to be fixed. Do a track or something. At least tell us the parameters, because telling that you just pulled the trigger doesn´t help. You could tell us what did you say to your pilot buddy that made him state that the 120 modeled in the game isn´t even a match for the A version. Just, don´t get mad.

(Before we start, all of this assuming you have the missile efficiency slider in the ACE position) Of course two aircraft can merge, but the possibilities are getting slimmer and slimmier with technology and SA. When I said no missile in the air I was assuming your long range shots had failed, and you were planning to fire another as he was pointing at you. Or another assumption, you were fighting another A/C and when you finish with it you realize that there is an F-15 in the neighborhood. Or perhaps the F-15 was flying low and you´ve just found it. There are tons of situations I can think of, of course it doesn´t happen when you´ve been patrolling that area for months (Homeland defense) and that is like the first time you see something out of place. Anyway it doesn´t matter if you fired or not, the point is that head on, the AMRAAM is likely to hit. Especially against the AI, they are just not good at evading missiles, they get lucky sometimes though, and sometimes is just the firing pilots fault. The only AMRAAMs being decoyed by chaff I´ve seen are the ones that barely have energy to follow their target and get a complete picture of the area (because their lead pursuit is not that, well, leading), and thus there is more possibility the missile will see the chaff, attempt to follow it for half a sec. and get the A/C out of the seeker view. What the heck is 'ACE' position? I keep mine in 'realistic' position, right at 50%. REAL missiles have significant seeker settling time, more so than the 50% position even simulates. Regardless, this setting doesn't affect the techniques mentioned since defeating the missiles is kinematic, and this option doesn't change the kinematics, only the vector errors (which SHOULD BE THERE ANYWAY!) Yes I meant half way the slider, realistic position. I thought that if you changed the difficulty to ACE it also chagned the missile slider to the medium position, but it doesn´t my mistake.

Not if you use right. Beaming for me, is only useful for breaking SARH locks in terminal phase. Look at the way the AI employs it, it seems to have a sixth sense for knowing when the SARH missile is aboput to hit. When it´s about to hit they beam, break the lock, trash the missile. They get back and shoot you ARH missile :evil: . If you use the technic I said of looking up with you radar then you can´t be notched, but be aware that you end up in a bad position if there are more enemy fighters. I have a story when I was a young F4 pilot. Two Mig-25s notched me then fly straight towards me, notch again, until they were very close to me, as I didn´t see them with my radar, I had no EOS(F-16 don´t anyway :P), and I didn´t have a visual on them, adcquiring them was not easy. So as they were two and I was one scared little F-16 pilot they shot me down with it´s silent IR missiles. That is the end of what happened but bear in mind two Mig-29s were coming up, if I didn´t finish with the two Mig-25s they would kill me in no time when I were dealing with Mig-29s. If I tried to finish the Mig-25s the Mig-29s would splash me in no time, and the sky was pretty big to be maddoging AMRAAMs all over the place. All that if you don´t bear in mind that I had only 1 AMRAAM for each of them. Yes, you F4 pilots got it right is the AMRAAM training TE. PS: This Thread is ON FIRE. Good grief, you do realise I'm referring to using it in real life, don't you? i.e., "in PRACTICE". Mmm, no, I didn`t realize, but if it were possible (as many claim it is) those are some of the ways to use it. And don´t you think that if it didn´t work like that then real pilots wouldn´t bother to try it in first place, and if it worked then there are some ways to efficiently use it, making your statement that beaming in practice is getting yourself killed really, well, pointless, unless you back it up with a source. PS: When I said on fire I meant that, we are continiously posting on it. We meaybe not talking about missiles ballistics and logic, but we certainly do talk abpout everthing that revolves around missiles(ie. tactics, radar, ect.), I consider those topics as important and that are worth mentioning in this thread. Where did I say anything about; "...making your statement that beaming in practice is getting yourself killed .." I said NOTHING about beaming (because beaming is extremely effective for a number of well established reasons). I spoke only in relation to DOPPLER NOTCHING; there is huge difference. If you don't want to discuss the topic of this thread, then start another thread about a topic which you do want to discuss. I meant notch I´m sorry for the confusion. I don´t think it would be practical to create threads for every sub category, but this thread is turning into a mess anyway. Regardless a lot of relevant opinions have been stated, and that should clarify lot of things about current missile modelling and what should be done in the future with it. Until the moderator´s decide what to do (if they see fit to change anything).

Yeah, Hard meneuvering is the way to go, but it doesn´t always work, you have to bear in mind you assume you know where the missile is by the F-15s radar emission power, but what if he turned away because he saw that big big smoke the R-27ET left, instead you didn´t see no smoke from his 120, it´s pretty tough to gain a tally on the missile without padlock. Also it is that Hard maneuver or nothing, if you didn´t time it right, you are toast. I guess you dont quite understand what I mean. The SPO-15 will always show you where the missile is because it has its own radar, and what the F-15 is doing has absolutely nothing to do with it. Hence you dont need to look for any smoke from his missiles. You will see a lock and launch warning followed by a rapid increase in emission power. That means the ARH missile is on its way. You just need to do what i desciber above and make a sharp turn towards the missile when its about 85-90%. And I dont see how, considering all this, is it possible to time it wrong?? I was wrong, OK ??? Question is if the SPO-15 always shows emission from the missile(ARH), ie because it is the most dangerous target or because it is an ARH, I think it is and then I think you are right. I didn´t consider that before.