Ardillita

In that article it is interesting to note this too: "and there are also reports that the R-77 can be launched and 'handed off' to another aircraft."

Why not? There are much more complex, far much more complex simulations that are for... free! Example: Orbiter. It is a space simulator, that simulates EXACTLY every phisics of flying (in atmosphere and in space). And this sim is for free, developed i a community. The cost we are talking about can never be measured in terms of $$$ because we are talking about a product that will be sold in all the world, so in end terms can talk about how much money wants the developer to earn with his sales. The development of a very realistic sim doesn´t really depends on money, but of the programmers team. The development team quality will say how long will take to develop the sim, how good it will be, and etc´s. At the end, with your final product ready for sale, you will sell thousand in the world. It is imposible not to earn enough money to cover the development costs, right? So, it is completly posible to sell such a compelx sim at $30, of course that if you can sell it at $250, you wouyld earn a lot more... may be because how much people would want to pay such a price for a sim In my opinion, it is comletly posible to develope a very accurate sim at $30 or so, if it has been done for free, it is posible. What small companies like ED should learn is to learn from others and not push things in their own ways, like it is doing now (come on, the develpment times of lock on are somehow too large, and also too much important bugs for such times)

Yes, but in fact I used tacview to see the angle (either way I didn´t need it, as I said, I had visual of the missile and I clearly saw when it ternunf to me, it was passing paralel to me at 1000 meter aprox, and when it was at my 9 clearle it did a 90º turn)

So, somenting that really "scared" me: the F15 shoot a 120 to me, from a relative short distance. I broke, and the missile was clearly away of any kind of posible tracking path. It was clearly not tracking me in any way. So clear that I just look at it while I shooted my missile, but suddenly, the 120 in parallel path to my at my 10, and did a 90º break turn and started tracking me. Fortunaly as I could see later in the track, this turn forced too much Gs and I was with good speed and missed. But my question is: this is obviously a bug right? in no way I was not even close the the glimbal limits of the tracking head of the 120, so what happened?

Yesterday night, I was reviewing a track I did, becuse dureing the fight I was visually trackin a missile I launch, and some seconds before I got a kill, I almost shoot another one because I though it was gonna miss. My missile, a r27er was heading towards a F15. This f15 was already makeing evasive maneouvers and from his point of view, he put the missile on his 3, and he was releasing chaffs as crazy, my missile did a strange movement (wich later took me to review the track) but finally broke into pieces the eagle. Seeing the track I followed the missile path. The missile was tracking well, suddenly it seemed it was tricked by the chaffs, and seemed to started tracking a chaff. This was for about 1 sec. I said this because the missile path suddenly changed from a lead persuit course toa lag persuit, very clearly and a sec later the missile path was clearle away the F15 tail, so im pretty sure the missile was tracking a chaff. But suddenly , the missile corrected itself and changed again to a lead persuit path as it it had re aquired the real target Im not compalining, Im happy because I got a kill but, is this ok? the missile can get tricked by countermeasures but then is there posibilities to reaquire the real target? Is this posible in real life and posible on FC, just in FC, is a bug in the path calculation or what?

You are mistakeing in the configuration of the numers of pilots in your group. Look carefully and you will see in the group configuration tab (in the mission editor) that you can see 2 sections where you read "pilot 1 of X", you probable have set up "pilot 1 of 3", but that section it is not the correct one, the other one is, put 3 pilots there and you will take off together with a wingman and the third will follow you as soon as you have cleared some meters of the runaway.

I still have the flanker 2.0 ORIGINAL CD!!!! what an era....

No, here you are wrong, and this is said by a person who works at the sea. You won´t see nothing of that size that is far at aprox 500 meters from you. I don´t know the english word dor this kind of glasses, but we have to use them to filter sun reflections, and a special effect produced by vapor on the water and so, wich just don´t let you see nothing far at 500 m from you. You can paint it in the color you want (the only good color is a orange very bright, fosforecent used in lifesavers). Other color you just won´t notice them, unless somebody tells you (look righ right there" and you will spend many many second to get your eyed used to the sun light until you have a chance to spot what you are looking for. Also, of course I don´t know the US radars capabilities mounted on that carrier, but as an example: a month ago, we had the visit of some boats from our armada, the most modern one. Some destructors and so. 2 of them are suposed to be our most modern war boats, don´t remember the type, but were french boats (destructors) from the 90´s, very modern really with upgraded radar and electronic countermeasures agains missiles, etc. We took the tourist tour on them. Me , as a professional diver, had the oportunity to talk to the captain and got access to the bridge. I was lucky to see more in deep thjings about the coutermeasures, radars,etc. One of my question was about if the radar could detect the Albatros. The Albatros is a sea bird we have here, black, of about 2,50 long from wing to wing. It is a huge bird that lives his life flying. They told me that they can not detect them, only under special circunstances and the detection was only a spot that would desapear in the next radar pass. My comment: being the albatros of that size, and ver very difficult to detct, wouldn´t be posible that US also can´t detect things of such size or may be it was confused with a bird in the radar? The albatros is quit bigger that the robots of the posted pictures.... And for sure I can tell that you don´t see them, unless they are very near from you

You had mcafee firewall probably

The posting of the link in no way was with any kind of political or racism intention. In fact, The article is in spanish, and the translation produced by automatic translators, makes it look very bad. In short, the articles reaaly is one of those speakeing of greats conspiracies and etc, and is not about racism. The article do, yes, use a word like sionist and so, but really believe me that (being spaish my mother language) the article is not racist. Yes it is vry very "paranoid", and as Isaid, is charged with many "paranoid". And if something matters, for sure Im agains any kind of racist thinking. My posting was not about the article, in fact i didn´t read it all of it, I just found the information about the migs, and post it the link as reference. If anybody felt ofended in any way, I give him my sincere apòlogies

Thanks ED!!!!!!

I know personally this guy in the photo, so i can say it is not a fake. He send me a link to a website where he and some friends write interesting things. But in this photo I see sometjing new, AND BEATIFUL The photo is not compelte but... that is a SU-33 carrying a SS-N-25 ONYX ???!!!!! Ant that fighter is placed in Venezuela Teh link, the photo is in the middle of the page aprox http://www.animalweb.cl/n_o_imperial/zionismo/fortress_3/el_fin_de_zion.htm

Acording to many articles, these fighter not only are the last generation of MIGS , but also are equiped with plasma stealth technology. I post some links: http://www.machtres.com/29smt.htm And here it says that 50 of these fighters have been delivered to Venezuela (wich I personally can confirm) with plasma stealth technology *** link removed ***

I thought it was a fake, the the image is from a news about a aerobatic show. I was going to post the article, but it was in chinese

Well, for sure many of you have seen this image, but for those that haven´t, here it goes: byhh.net/f/News/1150173315/su27.jpg It is from an airshow it seems, can a radar detect that plane that low??? jajajajajajajajajajaja

you are right... the mig-21 can not be missing

Lower you speed setting, and try that way. You wont get any advantage in setting high internet speeds. Try some low speed adsl setting (I don´t have FC right here so I don´t remember the values you have to choose from) If I remember well, my speed setting is that corresponding to a 56 K modem (but I have adsl)

Check if he has some MOD installed. The server and the client mus have the same mods (is any installed). Some mods prevents you from connectin to servers that hasn´t those mods installed

I think you need to declassify the missions/campaign. I I remember well, the default password is "eagle"

This happens sometimes when you have some mod that the server hasn´t installed. Both you and the server must have the same configurations (mods, conection speed setting is also important)

From the avi creastor in FC, I select divx codec , and I get excellent 3 minutes compressed in 20 MB aprox

This must be somehow close to paradise :D :D :D :D :D :D http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/dundin/kuznetsov2004/su-33_2/page_01.htm

Also, Im seeing in other of your screenshots, a rule in your firewall configuration, where it says (in plain english) to deny conection from the wan to the lan. remove this rule from your firewall. In fact, you actually don´t need the rest of the rules, you can safely remove the whole firewall. (in other config section, diseable int access to gui configuration page from the wan, disable the access to telnet and FTP port of the router in case your model has them)

I might have the answer to your problem. I have the same issue with other d-lionk routers models. In your sceenshoots I can see that when opening the ports, you specied in the protocol section "both". Usually this would mean "any" or at least "tcp/UDP Well, try this: Do exactly the same, but this time, intead of createing 1 single rule, create 2 rules: 1 of them opening the lockon port to the tcp protocol, and another rule opening the lockon port to UDP protocol. I don´t know why, but I have seen many many routers that seems to fail opening ports when you don´t specify each protocol in a direct way.

Sorry Pilotasso, I don´t understand you, what you mean?