Ardillita

Hey hey... that video has mixed scenes?????? The part where there is a plane flying against some bouts... that scene is from malvinas war may be?????

I have been flying this sim for about 2 years. It is awesone. The simulation of the phisics are imrpesive, and since the forst release, graphics have become excellent also. Here we have a perfect example from where ED could learn a lot ;)

Not glow in the dark but. Up there you are not unde 20 Cª. Temperatures up there are below cero, a body with 100 Cª up there, for sure "glows". As I said: the hubble IR tech added later when nasa send "mechanics" to repair it´s optics, can give us the image of a little body small as a light bulb and with the sme heat, at thounsand km away. Of course you can not put that equipment in a plane for obvious reasons (despite it value is a lot of millons and and made piece by peace and built under very special conditions (cero dust etc), but again: what could you build with actual military tech wich we all know if far more advanced than the available to the public and haveing some millons to spare?

And now that I think... if the raptor flis at a mach 2 speed as a cruise speed, I wander how it cover the heat produced by hipersonic speed, is it cover with ice ? :) (joke) So, IR technology could be the answer to detect the raptor... ?????????

"Doesn't look like any of us had the wrong impression of the Pirate system. It's a powerful IRST system for sure, but there is no indication that it will detect an F-22 at any meaningful distance at all (which is TucksonSonny's claim)." Yo can not even make this comment, you just don´t know. You don´t know for sure the f22 capabilities, and you don´t know the Pirate capabilities. Raptor designers can see it is invisible, and Pirate designers can say they can see it. Both of them has the same probabilities till they face no air. Ir tech in space can see the heat of a light bulb thounsounds of KM away, and with the advance of electronics, none of us can for sure claim such this thing. As the original poster said, we have seen the advance of optics with our little digital cameras of 100 bucks, what can be built right know will a millon bucks. We just don´t know.

The problem almost sure is not of your reouter since your router acting as a nat router shouldn´t have problems to router outbound/inbound packts, despite they come to the same ports (the port from your point of view is not much important since the nat router uses secuence numbers to identify wich machine eachs packet belongs to. The problem is at the server, where he can only see 1 IP, and so can´t identify your 2 machines, and so, he is just sending and receiveing information from "1" pc and 1 only.

Sorry, too much temptation. As I said in another post "as a tester, you seem to be very bad informed..." Withouit transmitting?????? You can shoot in hoj, and the target for sure won´t have a launch warning, but... and your radar? for sure will be trasmiting, at least 1 second, if not, how do you know there is somebody out there? at least how do you see and ecm signal??? I hope you are not cheating jajajajajajajaja Are you sure you are flying FC?????

Well, agree, but... remember that in 1.12a, the training missions don´t work (almost all of them)

I happened to me. My "solutio" is forst to make a backup of my original track, after that I try to edit it. If I see changes, I return to a copy of the original backup and start again. I have noticed that when a track was ruined, editing it again from the backup let me edit it and succed in the 2º or 3º attemp.

No, as ED tester you are very bad informed... ewr statios STILL can see through mountains and pass the information to long range battery guns. That bug still is on 1.12a. What was fixed, was not really a fix, ED just made a simulation to the fighters so it seems that the uber radar was fixed, but it seems they forgot about ewr stations ;). Look in the forum and you will see you are wrong. There are tracks posted too. I think you are talking about the kind of fixes like the range of 27er... like just changeing the value on the hud screen instead of really fixing the max range of the missile. So, we have a missile that has the same range, the fix is just that the pilot gets the fire permision later... but you can still launch with override... the same happened with the radar, the human pilot can´t see or use the ubber radar, but IA still can, so? where is the fix. Come on...

Well finally I see people with the same point of view (Goya, UWBuR and othjers). The quote: no man, with I think everybody means things like radar seeing anemy through mountains, IA with incorrect çdamage models (you hit 1 engine and they still can have full speed, WTF...) and things like that. I think that if you are saying this, you have not flown enough. Try to do a MP refuelling and let´s see if you can see a basquet... that bug is there since flanker 2.5x !!!!! No, definitly GG you are in a position trying to defend ED "policy", policy that in my opinion and in many others opinion is WRONG and has no defense.

Sure, please give me some days, I don´t even have FC installed right now. In fact, I have been planning to install it again since last week without time to do it and fly. But sure, I will try tonight.

While angageing 2 vs 1 I ussually do this: Climb as fast as I can while putting enemy on my 9 or 3. I climb till 8000 if posible, from there I turn to them a prepare to launch my r27 with override permission from 50 KM aprox. That way I expect my missiles to follow the ECM signal from enemy. The tip here is to climb high enough to give a chance my missiles to arrive with some energy. Sometimes I got a kill , but it is not important. After launch, I put them to my 2 or 11 and start a a quick go down looking to aprouch the enemy and a look up aspect. Here in some point the enemy probably will shoot, but we have enough space to evade while still aprouching enough to make more shots to mantenin them in defense. Remember that my missiles at this point are arriveing and the enemy is starting to make evasive manouvers that I must use to have space to make more shoots. Doing this way you have pretty much oportunity to achieve 2 kills, even with IA in excellent.

Seems great, thanks for shareing

I for sure think you are very wrong and I think you defend a position that can not be defended with solid arguments. When you move on, you have to abandon everything. I agree TILL THAT POINT. But, this is not a free project, ED is not giveing a gift to us. This is a product that ED is selling. Correct me if Im wrong but, how long was the life of FC? months? I mean life in terms of support. We are not talking about misterious bugs... we talk about very detailed and documented bugs, that were requested to be fixed LOT of times. Yoiu can´t just say "I don´t care, you bought this, have it as it is, right now I don´t care if it fails or if it is not working how I told you it would work, right now I give a sh.... and I will move on into a new project", because this is a resumed terms what ED is telling us right now.

Indefinitly? define that please, how many time passed since the first bugs came out, and all the bugs that never were fixed in the patches realeased? Of course it don´t have to be manteined for ever, but... be more serious please.

All of us have seen this kind of topic many times in the forum. But let´s be realistic: 1.- ED never gave an answer to any topic. I don´t pretend a company to answer all the question in all the forums arount internet, but... this forum is suposed to be the "oficial forum". So, in some way, ED just give a d.... about what WE THE CUSTOMERS want to say 2.- A russian publisher payed ED for makeing a K-50 simulation???? I thought it was us who were going to pay for the game... 3.- The direction ED is taking is the ED direction. Someone said K-50 is pretty popular in russia... of course it is, like apche would be in US, or the F22 to americans, but do not look for "excuses", in the russian forums are talking /complaining exactly about the same things like us, I don´t see tons of people requestin the K-50 simulation. So let´s face it: The request for a heli simulator seems to have appeared as a magic trick 4.- Thje worst: ok, ED will bring a heli simulator, so... all of we who payed for FC, Fuc.... ourselves and don´t expect any bug fix. "if you want, buy BS..." for sure will have tons of bugs wich of course we shouldn´t expect to be fixed, or as much we can expect SOME of the future bugs of the heli sim to be fixed, after that we will be waiting for a tank killer sim... and so on It is only me who thinks that this "developeing politic" is a crap?

If you host a mission, you should not be running other programs. The QoS is part of the TCP arquitechture, it marqs packets with different levels os importance (1,2,3,4,5...). This way, you OS, and routers recognice the importance of that packets and let them pass first that others or not, depending on how "important" you told your OS they are. So, I don´t know the software you mention, but if that prog let you reserve some % of your bandwith to be use by lomac, it is useless, since if you are not useing internet for nothing else than lomac, so there is no other traffic than lomac internet traffic.

I kenew this, but was an example, nevertheless, I guess you will agree that with or without the cleaning kit, the Colt didn´t worked as it was adverticed agains its counterpart the AK, wich since the point of view of the Colt developers was inferior.. But again, was just a plain rude example. Your explanation can´t be more accurate, but the point still is there: it was not the superior weapon as adverticed. And the plasma thing: Im not a phisics experts, are any here? And more... all this issues of course are high tech things, If I or you or the ED developers team would know how a plasma ECm works, well, wouldn´t we sell the patents? jajajajajajaja And that still is not the point. The point is clear: the suposed to be invincible F22, for sure won´t be, since for sure we can say that in some place there are counterparts already develped or in development.

Well, your injustifed reply seems a complete tosh to me. My opinion was supported by clear examples, you should learn to do that. Many bugs in FC are a tosh, and the developer team seems to kepp makeing them, right? So why can´t i make a tosh of my opinion? jajajaja Sorry, a little sarcastic

Did I? If yes, sorry, but the this thread has punctual examples, and an interesting article. Again, if the thread is repeated, wasn´t my intention

The F22 has been receiveing lots of "propaganda". For sure has and will have extremly powerfull capabilities but. Is it logical to go around saying that the F22 has not equal or rival? Since "eternity" every time a country develops a weapon, it´s rivals always tend to develop a counterpart, and the history teached us that has never existed a weapon powerful enough to let anybody says "we have no rival". As I read and read this seems to be the situation with the f22. The only thing the F22 can be as maximun will be the best fighter for a couple of years , no more than that, after that, for sure there will be an equal or even superior counterpart (specially if we think about the russians who always have proved that USA is far from being superior to them) We have lots of example: The assault rifle, the "COLT" (who much of us probably used a lot in counterstrike jajaja) was advertised by it´s developer as a superior rifle... Those colt didn´t worked in vietman because of... water, dust and rust... American ended useing all the ak-47 they could get from the enemy everytime they had the oportunity. in ww1 and 2: how many times the airforce from USA and allies were suposed to have the best fighters (airplanes)? The germans far proved they could develop better planes. Looking around we can find lots of examples of "superior" weapons being adverticed as that but in practice they were far from that or in the action some secret counterpart appered in scene and beat them. There are many articles about imprvements in the flanker series that will easily make them a match to the f22. Also, a little research shows great things like "plasma stealth" a great concept, cheap (makeing the russian style) and very effective. And article: Russian Low Observability Technologies Data Released Russian Scientists Created Revolutionary Low Observability Technologies Moscow, January 20. Nicolai Novichkov, ITAR-TASS information agency Research team of the Recearch Center named after M.V. Keldysh has developed new technologies allowing dramatic decrease in aircrafts' radar observability. Russian approach to low observability (LO) technologies is completely different from US Stealth and offers complete furtiveness of the protected object at a significantly lower price. An exclusive interview about these technologies was conducted by Nicolai Novichkov, ITAR-TASS with director of the Center, academic of Russian Scientific Academy Anatoliy Korteev. As academic explained, American approach to LO (Stealth technology) applied on B-2, F-117A, and fifth generation fighter F-22 "Raptor" is based on the following principles. The airframes of these aircrafts are designed to minimize their radar cross section (RCS), avoid all possible elements of the structure, which could reflect electromagnetic radiation. In order to minimize reflected radiation radio absorbing materials (RAM) are also applied to the surface of the structure. The main drawbacks of the Stealth technology are its negative effects on the flight and agility characteristics of the stealth aircrafts. Russian scientists approach the issue from the other direction. They proposed to create a plasma formation around protected object, which prevents radars from seeing it. Thus, aerodynamical characteristics of the plane itself do not suffer. Without interfereing with technical characteristics the artificially created plasma cloud surrounding the plane guarantees more than hundred times decrease in its observability. The physics of plasma protection can be described as following. If an object is surrounded by a cloud of plasma, several phenomenas are observed when the cloud interacts with electromagnetic waves radiated by enemy radar. First, an absorption of electromagnetic energy occurs in the cloud, since during plasma penetration it interacts with plasma charged particles, pass onto them a portion of its energy, and fades. Second, due to specific physical processes, electromagnetic wave tends to pass around plasma cloud. Both of these phenomenas results in dramatic decrease of the reflected signal. Static and flight experiments proved the effectiveness of this technology. The first generation devices, producing plasma field surrounding an aircraft and decreasing reflected signal were created in the Center. Later, a possibily of creating second generation advanced systems (capable of not only decreasing reflected signal and changing its wavelength, but also producing some false signals) was discovered. Such systems significantly complicate determination of actual aircraft's speed, its location and leads to development of completely new approaches to LO provision, unachievable to conventional Stealth technology. Furthermore, the weight of the systems developed in Russia do not exeed 100 kg, and power consumption ranges from kilowatts to tens of kilowatts. Advances in development of the third generation LO systems allowed to clear the systems of first and second generation for export, commented academic Anatoliy Korteev. In my opinion, don´t believe in the "superior" F22, just think as PROBABLY the first of its kind (or the most expensive), but be pretty sure that when the F22 raptor comes aperational, he will not rule the skies as many are advertiseing.

Infact, the planets discovered outside our solar system are very few, you can´t count more than 5. The existance of planet are, YES, a very well accepted statement, but really discovered non solar system palnets, very few. not because they are rare, but because the tech restrictions os scopes. They are there, we just don´t have the proper tool to properly see them.

If I fly at 10 meters altitud (with the su27/33, haven´t tested with other planes) the ranger from where Im detected decreases very much. But here comes the "magic". At 9 meter altitud, no mater how close I get to my enemy, he can´t sustain a lock on me. He gets a lock and launch his missile. Of course I get the launch warning, but a second later, my enemy looses his lock and the missile destroys itself (in this example Im talking in a vs oliver perry and other US ships scenary). This technic let´s me get real real close to them, and Im talking real close: I can get close enogh to see their gun shots on me, and have room enogh to make a quick maneouver and sink them with bombs. Is this real or is a bad modelled feature? Would the lock be "useless" if I fly at 9 meters? If anybody request it, I can make a track of this

The kh-41 "mosquito" doesn´t exist?, google man... and for sure is not even close well modelled in FC, it was somehow ok in flanker 2.X series. With "new" version of flanker, I mean some little more updated version, and I mean also the 33. There are version of the su 33 with new radar, well documented. The same with other su27 version. It is a repeated topic the threads asking if "can the su27 carry r77", and the common answer is yes, but not the version modelled here in FC. Now you understand my post?