TucksonSonny

Exactly, When flying @ Mach 2.3+ it could be in less than 4 seconds. With this kind of detail on lomac terrain scale, lomac 2 should be sold in a 10 DVD pack. :rolleyes:

Please take screenshots in minimum 16x12 with a GPU like that. Anyway nice shots! :icon_supe

The most maneuverable non tvc fighter is the ef2k PERIOD.

This looks anyway different from the first 30mkk published pictures:

1) Mig-29 (from A to K/smt) 2) Su-27/30/33/34/35/37 3) F-16A MLU BTW, my commercial top 3: 1) Concorde 2) Concorde 3) Concorde :icon_supe

My submarine knowledge is limited by a couple of classic films (like “hunt for red October” etc.) but how can it be that a diesel is more silent for sonar than a modern nuclear version?

Not that I am an Iran fanboi! If you ask me we have to stop them (Iran) before it is too late. Back on topic: About the kh-41 ASM-MSS Su-33 or not? You can check the kh-41 encyclopedia from Lockon! This is the 41 (compare the characters in red)

I am afraid that would be something like 5 times the days needed for Iraq with conventional weapons (and without counting Syria).

Now I get it! The total weight was calculated with missile and APU-170 launcher rack together. It was indeed a strange view when I was checking out the fixed pylon together with the special APU-170 extended launcher rack on the mig. First I thought that I found a super R-77 configuration :icon_mrgr .

Cntr-z (AZERTY) Cntr-w (QWERTY) ;)

It is ctrl-z on my azerty-keyboard!

FC 1.12a has 2 versions of R-77. What is the difference between the 2 versions apart from weight and pylon model? I am talking about these differences: {B4C01D60-A8A3-4237-BD72-CA7655BC0FE9} "R-77" {B4C01D60-A8A3-4237-BD72-CA7655BC0FEC} "R-77"

Or get some inspiration here: Spring 2006 killer gaming rig http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1939881,00.asp BTW, Corsair TwinX 3500LL Pro (2x 1024MB) was used!

I am afraid that you need the OC’d fx-60 to beat the world record! http://www.vrforums.com/showthread.php?t=62484

Only the mach meter is showing the correct (true) speed at whatever altitude. The mig-31 reaches top speed at Mach 2.8 @+75.000ft (23.000m) while the Concorde reaches his top speed (Mach 2.05) @40.000ft. Top speed altitude depends on the type of the plane dude.

I think that you were not pushing enough the su-27 to the limits! (The same goes for the F-15C I guess) Test was done with version 1.12a (Top speed: mach 2.5+). And with 10° dive: http://users.skynet.be/VandenHaute/locon/su27_mach_25_2.jpg I don’t know about RL but I think the F-15 is a little faster than the su-27! The thing is the planes are capable to reach these top speeds but it is not a good idea to stress these engines like that. After these stunts in RL the engines needs an expensive revision.

Or you can make a little script (textfile.bat or textfile.cmd) including all the services that you want to stop with Sc.exe - Service Controller Tool. (Download it here: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/reskit/win2000/sc.zip) Example for my system: @ECHO OFF CLS sc stop MSSQL$SQLEXPRESS sc stop MSOLAP$SQLEXPRESS sc stop SQLBrowser sc stop msftesql sc stop msftesql$SQLEXPRESS sc stop MsDtsServer sc stop clr_optimization_v2.0.50727_32 sc stop Spooler sc stop wuauserv sc stop ERSvc sc stop FastUserSwitchingCompatibility sc stop helpsvc sc stop MDM sc stop navapsvc sc stop PlugPlay sc stop RasMan sc stop RpcSc sc stop wscsvc sc stop ShellHWDetection sc stop SSDPSRV sc stop Symantec core LC sc stop ccEvtMgr sc stop SNDSrvc sc stop ccProxy sc stop ccSrtMgr sc stop SPBBCSvc sc stop srservice sc stop Schedule sc stop TapiSrv sc stop TermService sc stop Themes sc stop SharedAccess sc stop WZCSVC

My vote is for a high poly flyable F-14 Naval adversary for the su-33 (f-18 is OK too). A flyable F-16C flyable too if possible but priority goes for a western naval bird if you ask me! A new GFX engine? Dual core and Sli support for the existing engine would be nice! An option low/high poly models in the setup would be nice too. Enough dreaming for now. Black Shark is already sure enough. :icon_supe

I did the first mission! Very nice (cool fly by intro too) I am trying to find flight time to finish the campaign. BTW, where are the women? :biggrin:

Do you want a Dell 30”? Anyway this is how CobraOne looks like on a dell 30”: http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=101122 Anyway, I would spend the money rather on an FX-60 and some water-cooling stuff.

Try the F-14 AI with AIM-54C and AIM-120C’s. ;)

It is funny because I found this link which includes also the su-33 as a platform for the R-77. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-12-specs.htm

Sorry I don’t see the need for this: Stat example: A2A kills on the 504th server last updated: Sunday, 26-Feb-2006 20:01:05 GMT A2A kills: 1st place: MiG-29S: 2597 2nd place: F-15C: 2054 3rd place Su-33: 1106 4th place Su-27: 1091 The mig has also positive kill ratio vs the F-15C: MiG-29S 667:574 F-15C BTW, The su-30 can carry R-77 but is not a flyable! and good pilots have positive kill ratio’s using only R27RE/EM and ET :icon_supe You have a point; it is 5 times harder to score with SAR!

The F-16A/B Block 15 MLU is basically an upgrade comparable with the F-16C Block 40/50. Performance of the F100 which is used in the Belgium F-16A/B (Block 15 MLU) is today comparable with the F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust or 32000 pounds of thrust From its original 24,000-pound thrust class rating the F100 has matured into an engine that can produce in excess of 32,000 pounds of thrust (+33% thrust increasing) and remains a standard for fighter engine performance. The refurbished F-16 with its enhanced F100 engine is a very potent combat aircraft and one that is attractive to air forces needing an immediate augmentation of their force structure at an affordable cost. The Block 60 F-16E/F, which is being developed for the United Arab Emirates, features extra payload and range, in part due to the new F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust. PS. 145Kn (kilo newtons) is about 32597.29 pounds-force Block 15: Introduced on F-16A/B aircraft from 1981. Improvements included increased maximum T-O gross weight from 33,000 to 35,400 lbs, increased maximum weight for 9 g manoeuvres from 22,500 to 24,500 lbs, installation of two inlet hardpoint for sensor pods, strengthened store stations, increased horizontal tails, addition of provisions for six-station advanced Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles, early provision for AIM-7 air-to-air missile, cockpit upgrades, internal ECM upgrades and increased cooling capacity from 7 to 9 kW. Block 15 improvements introduced in 1988 include increased maximum T-O gross weight to 37,500 lbs, Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan engines, wide-angle Head-Up-Display (HUD). Block 20: Introduced on F-16A/B aircraft from 1996. Improvements include increased maximum T-O weight to 37,500 lbs, increased maximum weight for 9 g manoeuvres to 26,100 lbs, MLU cockpit, avionics and other provisions. APG-66(V)3 radar, Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine, Block 50 aft fuselage and wing. AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile, AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), AN/ALR-47 chaff/flare dispenser system. Included in the MLU program: IFF system, ECM system (AN/ALQ-131 ECM pods), and the "Link 16" communication interface. This is part of the M3 Upgrade within the MLU program. The M3 gives the capacity to work with the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System. This gives the pilot the possibility of firing an AIM-9X (or other advanced air-to-air) missile on a target while only 'looking and pulling the firing button'. The M4 software integration is expected in 2006. BTW, check info on this site: http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item17793.html I hope this helps,

Thanks GG, Everything was working! (I’ll test online next WK) Is it just me or is the burn through range again decreased in 1.12a with the Su-33 versus F-15C opponent?