Weta43

From what I've read, it is.

And both Saudi Arabia, and Australia each have less than 0.5 % of the world's population, but both have had time and resources devoted to creating skins for them. by your numbers, there are 15 times more women pilots per head of the world's population than pilots from Saudi Arabia or Australia, but while they can fly as an Australian or a Saudi, women can't fly as women in DCS Another fun fact - seeing as you find 6% a figure not worthy of representation - less than 5% of the world's population are native English speakers... Should we port the game to Mandarin ? There's a lot more chines speakers than English speakers - wouldn't that be fair and equitable; y'know, like a democracy? Edit - Also - you ever consider that maybe the reason that only 6% of the worlds pilots are women is that they get the same reception in the real world when they ask for their place as they do here ?

source: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 video: cpUdxPZzETk edit:

You don't need to - it's all in C++, and you can assign cores / threads from there if you want. It's the re-writing that's the hurdle, not the language.

Better looking than the F-16 !!!

I suspect the instant you heard their voices on the radio you knew they were women. Even if nothing was done with the models (though it's an order of magnitude smaller job than upgrading the model for a truck), having the option of the pilot speaking with a male voice or a female voice would let women stop feeling like they only exist in 'service' roles, and that they don't have to play 'in drag'. Also Don't you think it's weird how many white men think it's a waste of time giving representation to women and minorities, while women and minorities think it's a good idea. I wonder why it is that the two groups have such different opinions about it.

As 3WA and Etherbattx have said, the poll's not likely to give a very accurate answer. E.D. have said the vast majority of people play SP, but SP players don't have as much reason to lurk on the forums as MP players (I played SP for a year or so before ever spending any real time on the forums)

& just like I posted above... IRL, EOS works in conjunction if 'Automatic' (interleaved) mode is used, but not in encounter or pursuit modes

Maybe, but the N001 has the same processor as and a scaled up version of the antenna from, the N019. The N019's beam is only stabilised up to 120º in roll and +40º/-30º in pitch - so the 'feature' that has been implemented seems fair enough... Before various upgrades both had the same radar modes, including: "Encounter" mode (target closing): So two to SEVEN seconds to get a lock, no detection if the targets closing speed is less than 230km/h, and if the target turns away, you'll probably lose lock even if you are in STT. Pursuit mode won't detect targets receding at less than 210 km/h, and: Interleaved mode will detect targets approaching at speeds greater than 230km/h or receding at speeds more than 210km/h (Meaning targets with a relative ground speed of between +230km/h & -210km/h won't be detected. That's a big notch, then it will take between 2 and 7 seconds to re-acquire the lock). & it does automatically mimic the functions of TWS, but:

The only combat it ever saw was as a ground attack aircraft for the Saudi's - so 2 tricks at least :)

Just as a test, try doing a touch & go on the deck, then try the comms.

My memory from reading Overscan's guide to Russian Radars is that this doesn't sound too dissimilar to the limitations described there, and that there were quite a few limitations on the Su-27 (& MiG-29) radar operation that would disgruntle a few players if E.D. were ever to do a full fidelity module of the Su-27S. Still - Having your capabilities downgraded in the name of realism is easier to swallow when the realism is applied even-handedly... I'd be applauding E.D.'s implementing the limitation - if they weren't adding imaginary weapons and pylons to the Ka-50 at the same time...

White balance ? Green: Even more green: Brown:

Fixed that for you :)

Illumination bombs light up the part of the external model that intrudes into the Su-25A cockpit. (there doesn't seem to be a bug section in the FC3 forum)

Just went & tried, and I think you're getting yourself a little worked up... 1/ It's not a night attack helicopter. That's why they made a specific night attack variant. 2/ The rocket part of the illumination rockets do work, the flares do light, the flares do descend on parachutes after lighting all the way to the ground (both while lit and after going out - left part of image & centre), The rockets do illuminate the ground (compare middle image, where you can see the ground, forest, trees and road, with the right image where you can't), they're just not as good as they were / perhaps should be. 3/ The rockets aren't part of the Ka-50 module anyway. There's a lighting bug - that's why there's a thread asking for all the lighting bugs to be listed. The bug is - S-8OM-LE flares don't illuminate the terrain correctly...

Plug fouling does exist in the SIM, as does coolant boiloff - just neither are well represented with visible symptoms in anything beyond their impact on power & engine life:

& in the cluster of Kaikoura incidents that I linked before, on one occasion the commercial pilots and a news crew flying to interview previous observers filmed it flying alongside at the same time as Wellington air traffic control tracked it, and on a later occasion WLG ATC again tracked them and called Skyhawk's out specifically to intercept them while half a city watched

My understanding: The beam is modulated so that the signal progressively changes from the centre to the outside, and the beam width is adjusted as the missile flies away to keep the circle the missile is flying in the same size (so the cone / beam tightens as time passes, but at the point the missile is, it stays a circle of the same size) The control surfaces are set up so the missile rolls as it flies, which means constantly turning 'right' from it's point of view actually causes a spiral relative to the ground (my guess is that the missile actually naturally turns "out", and the control surface overcomes that so that the missile doesn't end up settling into the dead centre of the beam and obscuring any previous launched missiles view of the beam. It would also mean that if there were 2 sensors to allow differential positioning, and the missile was following a beam that's being slewed hard & so rotating entirely on one side of the beam, no control input would effectively equal negative control input to track the disk). So now all you need is one or more sensors that look backwards and find from the modulation where on the circle the missile is. If that's at the outside of the circle it turns in hard, if it's at the middle it doesn't. Because it's rolling the missiles control surface alternately controls the vertical position in the circle (beam), and horizontal, so a single surface and detector is all that's needed. It also means that if you have 2 missiles riding the same beam, the second won't end up constantly blocking the first one's sensor, because they never fly a constant course.

It's the sensors for the MLWS that was really fitted to 2 real aircraft.

The laser guidance cone exists, but that's not why the missile flies a spiral path.

This one ?

See that's the point of lot's of the posts here. The Official word from ED is that a 6 pylon version of the Ka-50 never existed, and that no Ka-50 was ever capable of launching Igla missiles. Chizh says the aircraft is imaginary, but that they wanted to do it so they are. That's their right. What some of us object to is the tortured logic used to try to claim that modelling an imaginary aircraft is somehow no less realistic than the modelling of an actual aircraft (as in another thread where it was suggested that it would be more realistic to add a FLIR turret to the Ka-50 than to turn the contrast up on the display & use the NV system).

I use an MSFFBII and the only modules that have serious issues are 3rd party - (or unofficial mods). Perhaps post the complaint to them ? (Having to swap axis isn't a bug it's a configuration setting. Not having the swap axis option would be a bug.)

This is ridiculous There are more women in the world than men, & women pilots throughout the world's air forces, but not a single woman pilot's voice in DCS. When it comes to creating assets, you're (almost) all capable of understanding that the person who codes the FM for the B-52 is not the same person that creates the model for the SA-6, or a skin for an aircraft, or the ground mesh for a map. Suggest that someone adds a female pilot, and suddenly the distinction becomes too hard for peole to grasp. Any resources devoted to this MUST be delaying more important work! The reality is that if E.D. decided to add female pilots - as has already been said - it would probably not be a case of making new pilot models for fast jets, it would be a case of paying a voice actor to create the sound files. The only work E.D. would have to do in house is add a couple of folders to the tree and change the code behind the ME options to pick from 4 options instead of 2 - English_M / English_F / Russian_M /Russian_F from English / Russian. Outside of the voice acting - it's probably 30 minutes work. E.D. don't do it because they're a business and think they don't need to - those women who want to fly the SIM will do so even if they have to use an male voice. The people on the forums who object in principle - well for the most part they just seem scared of change.