TucksonSonny

Hi MonnieRock, FX-60? :icon_syda Have you won the lottery or something? :beer:

Anyway they (Iran) have an attracted fighter mix. 25x F-14 Tomcat 25x F-7 (China J-7) 25x Mig-29A/UB 25x Mirage F-1 60x F-5E/F Tiger II 65x F4D/E / RF-4E Phantom Imagine if this fleet would be supported by S-300/S-400 AAA. BTW, this time things are different: Europe is supporting actions. I could already imagine an allied air force with 100 eurofighters supported by 25 F/A-22’s. All this thinking is of course from a hypothetic view for 2008.

Hi 169th_Mustang, Nice score you made with that A-10A there: 270 points (on top of the list just before me) and 13 units killed! 169th_Dedicated Score table: http://users.skynet.be/VandenHaute/locon/kills4.jpg ~{148th}~Van,

Thanks to the 169th_Dedicated server with AWACS I had a lot of fun tonight. A hostile fighter was chasing me @100ft within 16-32nm range. I could spoof his missiles and bullets were flying all over my cockpit. However I was flying direct towards a friendly fighter who was approaching us. Thanks to AWACS support I could survive and the allied fighter finished my chaser. BTW, with the Su-33 I scored 4 F-15 kills in 1 hour. ~{148th}~Van ,:icon_supe

What if the F/A-22 just can waste his AMRAAMs and can’t hit anything (there is still no single Su shot down by an AMRAAM). You just live in a different world: Upgraded Su-27s/Su30s and a lot of Mig-21s R77 capable operating in a hostile SA-10 environment (Comparing them ... if there was A2A combat today in US v Russia or China or India (god forbid)). F/A-22 squadrons are still not ready to take a country like Iran. If they were ready then they would be already in the region.

I expect GGTharos will come in very soon:icon_weed BTW it is generalization of my opinion;)

This year a couple of Belgium brain nerds were returning home and complaining about how things are changing in the US lately. Actually they are better paid in Europe at the moment.

How about: active radar missiles are for noobs. Anyway I’ve got the impression that F-15 pilots perform like noobs facing AWACS support. Thus for balance reasons without AWACS is OK for me.

The FX-60 is out! :icon_supe (read: 2x FX-55) In single core (Lomac/FC) you better go with the FX-57 Anyway check it out: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1909497,00.asp

FX-60 :icon_supe

Wasn’t Jester the instructor that nailed his ass in Top Gun? Or was it Tom Cruise scoring a kill with prohibition to go under minimum/safe altitude? ;)

Can you add the A-109 in Black Shark maybe? The 3D model is available for FS2004 (6 versions)! :icon_syda

Yes, I know what you’re talking about! Getting the Concorde @Mach 2+ and cruising on the way to New York at that speed without running out of fuel or without failures is one hell of a job. I have achieved to do the trip on the highest (most realistic settings) Concorde Pro is an awesome add-on! Concorde @Mach 2+:http://users.skynet.be/VandenHaute/fs2004/mach2.jpg How about a Belgium UFO:http://users.skynet.be/VandenHaute/fs2004/switzerland_3.jpg FS 2004 was not that bad! :icon_supe

“Microsoft: While we are still determining exact hardware requirements, we do know that it will run on a wide range of configurations because we want to make "Flight Simulator X" accessible to a wide range of fans.” Something in that paragraph tells me that it certainly will NOT be written for dual core! I wonder which company will do it before 2009 or something. Anyway finally MS FS 2006 is announced! :icon_supe

Happy new year :beer: :beer: :icon_jook :icon_pidu :biggrin: :icon_weed :wc-smoker :icon_weed :beer:

That’s a great pity because I am an F-15C hunter. When I would have more free time then I would join a Red squadron. “superfulcrum” (freelance) flying Su-27/33, Mig29A, Mig29S and Su-25T. Anyway have success with the recruitments! :beer:

F/A-18C AI squadrons try to land on enemy bases (and being shut down by AAA) instead of returning to their carrier. Maybe I am doing something wrong because Su-33 AI does return and land on their carrier.

I was talking about the Rafale F1 standard (Rafale M) Rafale M: This is the carrier-borne version for the Aéronavale, which entered service in 2002. Very similar to the Rafale C in appearance, the M differs in the following respects: Strengthened to withstand the rigors of carrier-based aviation Stronger landing gear Longer nose gear leg to provide a more nose-up attitude for catapult launches Deleted front center pylon (to give space for the longer gear) Large stinger-type arrester hook between the engines Built-in power operated boarding ladder Carrier microwave landing system "Telemir" inertial reference platform that can receive updates from the carrier systems. The Rafale M weighs about 500 kg (1,100 lb) more than the Rafale C. Unusually for a carrier-based plane, it does not have folding wings. This was to save money by increasing commonality with the land-based Rafales. Initial deliveries of the Rafale M were to the F1 ("France 1") standard. This meant that the aircraft was suitable for air-to-air combat, replacing the obsolescent F-8 Crusader as the Aviation Navale's carrier-based fighter, but not equipped or armed for air-to-ground operations. Future deliveries (to Flotille 11 some time after 2007) will be to the "F2" standard, giving air-to-ground capability, and replacing the Dassault Super Étendard in the ground attack role and the Dassault Étendard IVP in the reconnaissance role. This will leave the Rafale M as the only fixed-wing aircraft flown by the Aviation Navale, and plans are to upgrade all airframes to the "F3" standard, with terrain-following 3D radar and nuclear capability, from early in the decade following 2010. The first Rafale C delivered to the Armée de l'Air, in June 2005, was to the "F2" standard, and it is anticipated that upgrades similar to those of the navy will take place in the future. The Rafale replaces the Jaguar, Mirage F1 and the Mirage 2000 in the Armée de l'Air.

Hehehe, I want a flyable mirage with Mica’s How about a French carrier with F1’s in 1.12 :icon_supe

The thing is that your 6800 Ultra was not that bad. 1) It is faster than 7800GT 2) 7800GTX 256 is only 4-5% faster than 6800Ultra with latest directX9x games (with directX8.1 it is less) 3) Water on highest is just a bug put it on medium! (I can’t see difference in quality) 4) In some benchmarks the 6800Ultra beats the 7800GTX 256! What type of power supply has your rig? Fx-55 @2.8Ghz consumes about +130Watt!

I am running now 1 year with my Gigabyte motherboard without problems. The FX-55 is running great all day long with FC and Panzers Phase II on multiplier X14 =2.81Ghz (@FX-57speed :icon_supe ) Anyway with my stock cooling and 400Watt power supply AOE III and MS FS2004 prefer multiplier X13.5 =2.71Ghz. (X13 =2.61Ghz default) I was not doing FSB OC with changing voltage because I need to go another 2 year with my stuff.

I just did a quick test with the minizap (missile simulation program) and the ER (not the export version) was going over 18 km. I was using your parameters: Launch speed: 800km/h and alt 4001m (target speed= 0km/h and target alt=4001m) It looks like the ER was downgraded once again for the balance of the game.

The encyclopedia from FC 1.11 shows why the EM is the better missile. ER length = 4.70 m EM length = 4.78m ER G limit = 18G EM G limit = 20G ER max mach number = 3.0 EM max mach number = 3.4 Of course the Su-27 (with only ER) is the better platform (faster with better radar) and this explains maybe the better kill ratio of the ER missile. BTW it is strange that both missiles have the same weight (350kg in the encyclopedia)

Why on earth would they do that? The ER and EM will be the same in your dreams maybe. Anyway in 1.11 the EM is a better killer (online and offline single player)

Nothing new there :icon_weed