Rhen

Putting Lock On into a root directory does two things under Vista64: First, whenever you install a program in Vista64, it assumes you are a hamfist that will pork things up, so any time you install to the default directories of C:\Program Files, or C:\Program Files (x86), whenever you make changes to a file in these directories, Vista64 "protects" you by making a duplicate file with your changes in a directory in your user folder: For example C:\Users\smuj70\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files (x86)\Ubisoft\Eagle Dynamics\Lock On\Config\graphics.cfg This is where changes are saved whenever you make changes to your monitor's aspect ratio in Lock On. That's why changing the file manually using notepad never seems to work for some. When you install in a root directory, all this is bypassed & any changes you make to any files within Lock On work. Secondly, programs like ModMan will work appropriately with Lock On & you'll be able to install & uninstall modifications to the game easier.

There's 2 types of leading edge flaps on the 74. The outboard sections have variable camber leading edge flaps and the inboard sections (between the fuse and engine) have krueger flaps. IIRC there's a total of 10 on each wing. They raise in groups of 4 on the -100 based on the trailing edge flaps. When the TEFs are down 1degree groups 1 & 3 (inboard) actuate. When TEFs are down >=5degrees groups 2&4 (outboard) actuate. In the -400, they're in 2 groups: Inner & outer, with the same actuation. Retraction is just the opposite.

I've been running LLOFC v1.12b on Vista64 for a while now. Here's what I recommend: 1) Install to the root directory - not to c:\Program Files (x86)\Ubisoft...\Lock On - but directly to c:\Lock On 2) Run the Lock On Flaming Cliffs patch/cd & then install 1.12b which has the Starforce drivers for Vista, so there's no need to install any other Starforce patches 3) Before you run Lock On for the first time, start TrackIR, if you have it. 4) Start your communications program in administrator mode, so you'll be able to use your key bindings while in Lock On. Otherwise you might have intermittent lost comms where you'll be unable to transmit, but receiving will be unaffected. 5) Then, right click on the desktop icon for Lock On, hit the compatibility tab and select "Run this program in compatibility mode for Windows XP (Service Pack 2)" and check the box for "Disable desktop composition." Disabling desktop composition will disable Aero and increase frame rates in the game. I've found that you don't have to run it as administrator when doing this. 6)If you have a Creative Labs Soundblaster card, like the X-FI or Audigy, then get Alchemy, which will prevent you from having loud engine sounds upon starting your engines. 7)If you have troubles with TrackIR not responding then delete the TrackIR files in the \input and \config directories in Lock On. Hope this helps

You're kidding me, right? I'm no EE, I'm just a pilot, but that statement shows that you haven't considered the differences in design, architecture, and operational capability: PESA - Passive Electronically Steered Array or passive phased array radar PRO's: Agile electronically steered beam Multiple antenna elements, as with conventional planar array Low weight compared to MSA (mechanically steered array) High power beam - since it has a single beam usually using a TWT (travelling wave tube) Beam width, shape, and obviously direction can be finely controlled Much smaller radar signature with smaller side lobes - less apt to be jammed Modes (A/A & A/G) can be interleaved and other modes can be time shared CON's: High power beam using a TWT - can only produce one beam at any given time and if the TWT is jammed, so long radar. TWTs degrade with time and need to be replaced sooner than T/R moduels in AESA Single frequency beam, as opposed to multiple simultaneous frequencies. Not as expensive as AESA Not as many problems with heat dissipation AESA - Active Electronically Scanned Array PRO's: Same as above but because it doesn't use a/multiple TWTs but a T/R module: Each antenna (receiver) has a transmitter behind it (low power) - A T/R module, & each AESA radar is made up of thousands of T/R units. This allows AESA radars the following benefits: Each T/R or group of T/R units can function at different frequencies = multiple beams, more jam resistance, can sustain multiple T/R unit failures without significantly affecting radar performance, higher MTBF over previous radar types. These multiple beams can have different functions: X-band tracking, L-band scanning, IFF, EW, and NCTR all simultaneously (good luck trying that PESA!) Did I mention LPI? Well what's the use of putting a PESA on a stealth aircraft? Each T/R module can transmit at varying frequencies, strength just below Bandit RWR detection levels, PRFs, pulse forms, and all this variation made rapidly will confuse RWR sets at higher outputs, or be undetectable since they last a brief moment (shows up as noise and is not displayed, a false alarm, or doesn't show up at all). This is in contrast with a PESA scanning at kilowatt level power in a single frequency pulse. Better NCTR based on 3D synthetic aircraft signature rather than fan blades in an engine - thus allowing more rapid and all-aspect NCTR ID of targets. Small side lobes as well, but with less power per T/R group transmitting, it has even smaller side lobes with attendant jam resistance. Let's not even mention that the AESA radar makes more than half of what the Raptor does operationally a secret. Can you say Electronic Attack and soft killing airborne sensor systems such as A/A missiles or search and fire control radars to name a few unclassified functions coming out of recent publications. CON's: Lower power beam can theoretically decrease fire control ranges over higher power beam forms (but in reality, this is not significant to operational ability) EXPENSIVE T/R units (or MMICs - microwave monolithic integrated circuits), very complex to mass produce. Considering that each aircraft needs hundreds - to several thousand T/R units - an inexpensive mass-production capability needs development = for which the Russians (and until recently Europe) do not have. Until anyone can reliably turn out T/R units in mass quantity - AESA radars are superfluous. Consider that the Raptor program requires 3/4 million T/R units if the Raptor is ordered in numbers that the USAF wants. HEAT - MMICs are like any IC and want to operate cold. Requires active cooling - usually fluid like your CPU or video card :smilewink: Dubious savings of maintenance functions - while it's easy and quick to replace a T/R unit as opposed to a magnetron or TWT, the liquid cooling system needs to have excess capability to deal with longer active cycles (search and fire control functions, and obviously EA). Read above. You still fail to see that this is possible, I guess. So, don't believe me or other reputable sources... just go with your first instinct, man!:smartass: After all, we can't all be right like you, right? True, the Raptor has excess processing power with enough system redundancy as well. Even at peak, the processor array works only at less than 3/4 of its max (like it's underclocked) potential. The thing that makes AESA work is processing power and software. Without that, there's no AESA. No, not a thousand, but definitely more than one!:megalol: Sorry Alfa for continuing to take this thread OT!:blush:

You're absolutely correct. Unfortunatly, Congress gets their hands into it and mandates the percentage of any weapons, equipment, & material produced requiring US made content. They attempted to raise this percentage - which I believe is 50% to 65% and that would've put a lot of allies in the bin, including jeopardizing the JSF. The Airbus tanker is a good thing, the bad thing about it is the size of it's footprint. It's a larger aircraft, so fewer can be stationed in one place. It's also heavier, requiring more contemporary aerodromes with good tarmacs. We fighter pilots care about "Booms in the air" so we can cycle our gorillas on and off the tanker rapidly. It does us very little good if we are delayed in the anchor waiting for gas because we only have 4 tankers in the air vs 6-8. Just so long as I get my gas... :thumbup:

The interleaving that's being done is radar MODES - A/A & A/G. The APG-77 does produce MULTIPLE beams simultaneously (I provide no proof except that and will disclose no classified info). This radar is now in it's 4th generation, with future Raptors getting a refit to 77v4 standard. The 77(1) - (4) have the densest packaging of T/R elements (it doesn't use bricks, it uses tiles with 2 T/R units per tile vs 1 T/R unit per brick). The power output and frequency agility becomes more significant while maintaining LPI and degrading nothing. It's about software advancement (algorithms) and processing power onboard the aircraft - which the Raptor has in excess.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

Have you installed hotfixes recommended by Nvidia? http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixes.html I have a similar system, running Vista64, but with SLI. Initially it was running without crashes, but had recently started crashing in LOMAC. I traced my problem (perhaps not yours), to a little too much juice to the CPU to attempt a stable overclock. No, I didn't have to tone down the clock, but had to decrease the voltage to the CPU. This almost eliminates crashes from LOMAC. It still crashes at the most inopportune times, but after this fix, seems to occur in a ratio of 1 in 5-7 LOMAC starts. Recently I've installed Vista Service Pack 1, and I haven't had a crash lately, so there's possible hope around the corner. Do you have any other crashes that occur without LOMAC running? What other things are happening? Are you also getting CTDs in LOMAC or other apps? Is LOMAC the only culprit when you get a BSOD (are there any other file/hardware errors associated with your crashes)?

One of the best questions I've seen around here in a long time! You're overgeneralizing Boyd's EM Theory. The Energy Maneuverability Theory is basically the scientific and mathematical description of what fighter pilots have know for a long time - having an agile aircraft that has the power to pull off sustained maneuvers, and still maintaining the ability to accelerate and decelerate rapidly will be characteristics of the best fighter aircraft that can be designed. Remember EM Theory is based upon excess energy (the initial name Boyd gave to his theory) to maneuver the aircraft. So, we have a concept of excess energy being used to maneuver the aircraft, we've got to plot the following in a graph: Aircraft Velocity - V Aircraft G -G or n Specific Excess Power - Ps Turn Radius Plotting all these variables gives you an idea of where and what an aircraft can do at a specific point in it's flight envelope. These plots are called EM Diagrams, or VG or Vn Diagrams, or more generically "doghouse" plots because they look like a doghouse. Here's one for a T-38: From this, you can tell that the T-38 has the following parameters: Best instantaneous corner velocity: 400Kts Turn Rate at instantaneous: 15.5 degrees/s Turn Radius at instantaneous: 3000ft Best sustained corner: 450Kts Turn Rate at sustained: 12.2 degrees/s Turn Radius at sustained: 4600ft Sustained would be where best to operate the aircraft since it keeps your energy high while allowing the best sustained rate of turn for your money. This equates to more snap shots in a turning engagement even with an adversary with better rate & radius but with a slower corner. Boyd would say that this excess energy would give you more options to maneuver the jet and keep the bandit off balance. We compare jets by taking their doghouse graphs and superimposing them upon the aircraft we want to fight. This will tell us where we have the advantage vs our adversary - this is where Boyd's theory comes into real play. As it should be! :smilewink: But I'd say that you're still a bit slow as you should be flying around sustained corner. That's where you'd be wrong as well. I believe the Russians were well aware of the theories behind the development of the Eagle and Viper. They used Boyd's EM theory to come up with some superbly agile aircraft. Remember that the Flanker postdated the Eagle by some 20 years so they had plenty of time to come up with something that might be more maneuverable at specific points in their EM diagrams. Boyd's theory has nothing to do with post stall maneuverability, where Cobras, Herbst maneuvers, post stall loops and mongoose maneuvers are performed. What it does is say that the aircraft that is highly agile with great acceleration, and excess power, can, in general, beat aircraft with less of these attributes - all other things being equal (the "all other things I'm talking about are pilots, of course :smartass:) So you have Russian aircraft that can take advantage of high AOA post-stall regime, but they must be able to rapidly accelerate back to maneuvering speed. This is one thing that's not in Boyd's theory and is called "combat cycle time." The combat cycle time is the time it takes to complete one cycle around the edges of the doghouse plot. The faster the aircraft can complete a combat cycle time compared to another aircraft (bandit), the more agile and maneuverable the aircraft. So we have, from Boyd's EM theory, the following traits of a good fighter aircraft: Agility - the ability to change direction and speed rapidly Speed - the ability to accelerate, decelerate, and reaccelerate rapidly (this equates to a nice small aircraft of light mass - as opposed to behemoths like the F-4 or, arguably, the F-15) as well as making the decisions to perform specific tactical maneuvers just as rapidly He went to further his theories by adding: Lethality: Bringing sufficient force to bear Precision: Employing your assets without significant error This became his OODA loop, which is a discussion for another time. Again, you must remember, we're still talking about the same paradigm. I just think your understanding is a little basic.

ROFLMFAO!!!! GOD! It truly must be pretty in your world! :megalol: Sorry SoaringEagle, it's just a truly funny statement of historic proportions! :lol: Really, I wish all potential adversary air forces believed that things behaved the way they do in LOMAC. It would make my job entirely much easier than it is. So, if you wouldn't mind... could you convince all those countries that might be a nuisance to use LOMAC as their flight training aid? Pretty please? :clown::smartass:

In an ideal world where (insert your favorite sim here) developers have lots of cash and time on their hands, they should model the entire planet in excruciating detail. However, we don't live in an ideal world, where funds flow like water, or everyone's specific desire will see fruition in DCS. Here's neat thought... How 'bout we make sure the thing in the name of the sim is simulated? Lock On: Modern Air Combat = an air combat sim that should concentrate on specific details that make it an air combat sim. Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark = again a combat environment, concentrating specifically on the KA-50 helicopter - so let's get those things right first, then concentrate on other things that help immersion. Microsoft Flight Simulator = Supposedly simulates the specifics of flight in a variety of aircraft. Hey, here's an idea... let's make sure there's gusty winds and clear air turbulence in this sim, because the feeling of flight is the important thing, then we make sure they've modeled hydraulic system overheats and jet blasts later. The SIMS: Whatever... :megalol: Yes, I'd like to see meteorological phenomena in a combat sim eventually, but I would have thought that the more important things are getting the feeling of flying a helicopter in a combat environment is more important, once that's done, then we can put wind perturbations into the mix. As a guy that does most of his fighting above the dirt and grime of a battlefield, I can safely say that gusty winds or turbulence has very little effect in how I fly an Eagle in combat. Now, it makes a difference if I'm doing an ASLAR or formation approach, but not much of an effect on combat ops - at least for fast movers.

Dude! I barely talk with you on this forum. What makes you think I'd message you IRL? :doh: Just google "redneck dogs" and perhaps you'll see that you can pick that picture up anywhere.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=294603&postcount=205 Just to refresh your memory, Ice....

Yep, that's me on the left. Would you like my ISOPREP card too? :lol:

The_GOZR, if you're referring to the aerodynamic buffet shown in the video I posted and thinking that's meterological turbulence, then you need a better understanding of aerodynamics and aircraft flight - beyond that apparently taught to test pilots. If you were referring to some other video posted in this thread, I humbly apologize. With regard to the difference between Russian and NATO pilots, evidently you still don't understand the concept of G-tolerance, and how it's gained. If you fly more often, and pull G's more often, you can sustain them better than those who do not fly as often or pull G's more often. I didn't say anthing about their ability to fly and fight. I only point out that a pilot who flys often and fights even more, is better at withstanding the rigors of the high G environment. Your keenly mistaken if you think I said that NATO pilots are better. I know better than to get pulled into that discussion on these boards.... :lol: So, why don't you stick to things you know, and I'll do the same and we can just agree to disagree. Don't be so obtuse, Ice! :smilewink: The limit's imposed to minimize airframe stress. AFAIK bugs still can pull more Gs if the pilot needed it to live through the engagement. However, in normal operations, it's limited to 7.5Gs I believe. At any rate, it's the PILOT - now let me say it again THE PILOT. One more time PAPA INDIA LIMA OSCAR TANGO that pulls the Gs. It's the pilot that needs to sustain them. Therefore it's usually the PILOT that's the limiting factor. When I was a T-38 IP, I didn't fly an aircraft rated to 9Gs, however I was rated for 9Gs in the centrifuge. I'm sure your pilots are as well. This has been a great learning experience to me. I've been under the assumption that people around here had a little bit of a fighter pilots character in their hearts, and they were trying to simulate what it's like to be a fighter pilot, so they can test themselves in this environment and understand the complexities of aerial tactical combat - and, of course, along the way - have some fun (the more important goal, arguably :thumbup:). Perhaps I'm mistaken in that department. So, go ahead and defend what you've got - it's all you'll ever get.

Late to the IP again... sorry you can't have any rep, as I need to spread it around again...:(

:PThe collective memory around here really sucks, doesn't it? Here's some of my old posts, as it's too much of a bother to retype all this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=293541&postcount=130 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=293808&postcount=149 The_GOZR, you're coming in weak and unreadable...:megalol:. Obviously, turbulence is a much more important ingredient in a MODERN AIR COMBAT "sim" (or is it more apt to call this a game? :helpsmilie:) than correct modeling of radar, G-envelopes, low/high speed aerodynamic modeling - to include high AOA buffeting, missile kinematic and seeker head performance. So I'll let you be the spokesperson on that. As for G modeling, well IMHO, you should leave that to a fighter pilot.:smilewink: Ice, you're vast experience in simming makes you the expert here, so I'll defer to your greater experience in this area. :music_whistling: Just want to correct one thing. Lawn Dart drivers (F-16 pilots) can't pull more G's than an Eagle driver, or a hornet driver for that matter. We all can pull 9Gs. Ok? Even Aussie hornet drivers can do that. :smilewink: Reclining the seat only gives you a 0.5-0.75G increase above what's already given. Now, I'll just post a vid, like yours, and explain what's happening, so that those who have much less real-life flight simming experience might understand, Ok? :smilewink: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/219 It's a 2v1 BFM sortie, with #3 playing bandit. Bandit comes down right side of the formation and appears to engage #1 first as 2 gets into a 2 circle with the bandit. 2 pulls to the double beeper (that "BEEP-BEEP, pause, BEEP-BEEP" sound that your hear is the Overload Warning System (OWS) warning tone that 2's pulling 92% of the allowable G the F-15 can pull. You do the math). The bandit switches to #2 who's now engaged defensive. 2 pops flares so 1 can ID the bandit. 1 calls engaged, 2 calls press. 2 reverses his turn and starts a nose low left break turn to the double beeper, so that he can make 1's BFM problems easier to solve and let him get on the bandit's six. Notice how long he's in the double beeper. If 1 didn't call the tracking kill, 2 would still be pulling to the double beeper, otherwise he'd be killed by the bandit. One other thing to notice is the buffeting as the AOA increases. While this is modeled in LOMAC, it comes too late, and starts too strong. It should start sooner before the energy sustaining portion of the envelope and be felt as bunny feet running over the wings. As the aircraft goes to its sustained corner AOA it should be deer feet. As the F-15's pissing speed away fast, they become elephants running over the wings. This, and the OWS tells me how much I can pull on the stick and still keep my energy. All things that aren't quite right about the aerodynamics modeled in the LOMAC F-15. Again, this is the same problem with the G modeling in LOMAC. While it's nice to have those things like black out, and then, the eventual GLOC where the controls are unresponsive, THESE THINGS HAPPEN TOO SOON AND ARE TOO HEAVY-HANDED IF YOU'RE MODELING A USAF-TRAINED FIGHTER PILOT. There, I've said it and about as clearly as you can say it. I believe ED when they say they've talked with many Russian fighter pilots who confirmed their physiological modeling. I just believe, therefore, that they got it right for a Russian fighter jock, but NOT a NATO fighter pilot. Why? Because they don't get as much flight time as we do. The more G's you pull, the more G's you can pull. Or translated into the Queen's English: Cumulative recent experience you have pulling G's allows you to sustain much more G's than the person who has little or no experience pulling Gs. It's a fact. So, let's recap what's wrong with how it's modeled in LOMAC: 1) Onset of tunnel vision (loss of color saturation/darkening in peripheral vision) is to soon. This sign can be missed if the pull is too rapid - that is, G onset is to rapid. (This "tunnel vision" has happened to me IRL) 2) Just improving your AGSM should allow you to continue to pull the G's, without any penalty. 3) Onset of loss of color saturation in central vision is too soon. This sign can be missed if the pull is too rapid. (BTW this has never ever happened to me). 4) Immediate release of SOME not ALL G's at this point and application of well-executed AGSM (which the F-16 pilot in Ice's video isn't doing, nor did he get on his strain in a timely fashion) should allow you get back on the Gs. 5) Blackout comes too rapidly and too soon since it doesn't account for any of the above. At this point, IRL, you can still maneuver the jet, and the maneuver you must execute is to come off most of the Gs and KNOCK IT OFF if it's training, or improve whatever the hell you're doing because it's not working. This sign can be missed and you can go directly through this to: 6) GLOC should have a time and thinking penalty, which is only PARTIALLY modeled in LOMAC. You should be incapacitated from anywhere to 5-30 seconds, where the program inactivates your joystick and centers control gains, simulating a limp body in the pit. Also, after a GLOC, it's easier to do it again, as ED's modeled, but also you should fly like you've had a few at the pub after GLOCing. This effect should last for several minutes after the GLOC. This isn't modeled. Despite relaxed G setting not modeling all these bells and whistles, the fact remains that it gets them wrong by causing them to happen much too soon, without giving you a way to correct any warning signs. This, and the fact that for the vast majority of fast jet drivers, a blackout has never happened in their career, let alone a GLOC, makes the "Realistic" setting too restrictive.

Oh, mighty Test Pilot GOD of the skies, I apologize for taking thy name in vain! ;):megalol: Seriously, how many high G sorties do you do a week? How many set ups do you do in a sortie? Our training has us do anywhere from 3-5 high-G sorties/week. We do high-G setups anywhere from 3-4 times PER sortie. You fly a flight test profile right? The amount of time you spend in flight per week is probably the same as the amount of time I spend at greater than 3Gs per week! You can talk and talk about how realistic the realistic G setting is in LOMAC, but if it were that realistic, then there'd be smoking holes all over Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi just from the student pilots in UPT GLOCing all over the place.:doh:

Is there something running in the background, like perhaps your anti-virus software? Have you set the following: Lockon in XP SP2 compatibility? Disabled desktop composition Disabled windows sidebar Are you running with your 8800GTX overclocked? I have pretty much the same setup you have: QX6700 4Gig pc 8000 BFG 8800GTX x2 (SLI) Vista64 X-Fi Platinum But I don't have lockon crashes as much as you - with the exception of when the sound drivers and the video drivers clash. Tropikal, the latest drivers are 169.28 but they seem to work better for the latter versions of DirectX rather than DX8. Nvidia and LOMAC don't play well together anyway.:noexpression:

Really? Well, all my time in the Eagle at high G must've been imagined then? :pilotfly: Look, I don't know whether you get the occasional time in a MiG as a present or whether it's your full-time job. But if it's the latter, then you need to do more flying. For a fighter pilot, high G's are a way of life. The more flight time you have, the more your body's used to pulling G's. Your body responds quicker than an airline pilot/cessna pilot/glider pilot. You can pull more G's than the average human being. Why? Because it's your job. You do it several times/week and that's just like any physical training. The more you do it, the more you can withstand it. Another aspect you're forgetting is that when we pilot an aircraft, we're aware of when we're going to pull a high-G maneuver, and we ready ourselves by getting on our strain. We tense against the fast pants (G-suit), we prepare ourselves for our oxygen mask stuffing our face and lungs with pressurized oxygen, we do a good AGSM, which is key. We lift weights to give us strong muscles, we run to give ourselves stamina for the long duration hard pulls, and we fly high G sorties. Now the MiG/Su pilots... well, how many hours do they get doing this compared to their NATO counterparts?:joystick: I'm not saying you're wrong about it hurting. Sustaining anything over 7-8Gs HURTS. But it's not the debilitating thing you seem to thing. If it was, then ... well, why would I/my aircraft be able to pull 9 Gs? For show? Air shows? :megalol: Yeah, I land. I'm covered in sweat from doing a 2v2 BFM/DACT sortie, I wear my flight suit sleeves rolled up to show everyone my G-measles (the broken capillaries at the bottom of my arm). I have strawberry marks where my harness has been pressing into my shoulders. It HURTS. But, if I couldn't function in the high G regime, then I wouldn't be a fighter pilot. I'd be a CARGO PILOT, or perhaps a sim pilot. Not a fighter pilot. Truly, you say that GG has no clue? Perhaps you should review what you're saying as well.:music_whistling:

It's a 30 year old airframe, built by the lowest bidder - don't get me wrong, It's saved my ass and is the best aircraft I've flown to date. But if you're wondering - in the heat of battle - whether your own aircraft will bite you in the ass in a hard turn, then it's time to move on to something newer. I believe that Mick-2, the mishap aircraft was involved in a 3.3 G pull at the time. The longeron was thinner then spec and not machined correctly. This led to two cracks in the longeron. As I've said in another thread, we in the Eagle community routinely pull 5-7 Gs most sorties, so 30 years of "hair on fire" pulling G's, going supersonic will stress normal components, not to mention defective ones. Unfortunately there's more aircraft out there that have these defective longerons installed in them.

GG is correct, the rest are, as you've state, just kidding themselves. :music_whistling: BTW, we've already done the poll thing PoleCat :lol:: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=23946

That would be an incorrect assessment of the facts. With regards to training. Going over 5 G's happens pretty routinely, even in IFF - especially after burning down some fuel and getting lighter - which allows more G's to be pulled. Every BFM/DACT sortie I ever got into routinely went to 6-7+ G's. Now figure we do 3-6 engagements everytime we have this training profile and, well, you do the math. :smartass: Regarding "real battle" it all depends on the engagement. Every turning fight I've ever heard of/been involved in went to 6Gs - AT LEAST. If it gets WVR or there's SAMS involved, then we pull the number of Gs required to perform a successful maneuver. In the heat of battle, on the first day of the war, there's a few over Gs happening out there - at least for us non-G-limited types.:doh: Neither realistic, nor reduced will ever be a correct assumption of what's happening to a real fighter pilot pulling G's. However, as I've stated in the past in various threads, you've got to be a pencil-necked geek to grey out/GLOC as much as the realistic setting supposes. I thought we beat this dead horse.

Only 8 jets out of over 400 have been found to have problems, & the Eagle will be around for some time - at least until the Raptor numbers grow. However, every plane in the inventory, except the Raptor is currently residing in the bone yard.

Yeah... when you start 3,000ft behind your opponent - and your opponent isn't expecting an engagement in the first place, it's very difficult for you to lose the fight... Guess where the Flanker was.... At least in India, a fight was expected.