Callsign.Vega

I'd be surprised if Europe purchases more Warthogs versus North America. But then again we are talking like ~25 countries versus 2. (Sorry Mexico doesn't count lol). The electrical/power standards issues doesn't fly, as the Warthog is USB. Virtually all computer standards emanate from the US. They also pay "more" for stuff in Europe because of higher taxes. At least the socialism puts some money back into their home country versus the US's money gets sent directly to China and the designing company. Gotta love the new world where one country manufactures everything and the rest of the worlds purpose is to sell and purchase those items.

The entire US distribution shipment is most likely on some Chinese cargo ship taking on water in the Pacific Ocean. ;)

Hilarious video that includes Harrier and F-35 talk if you haven't seen it before:

From SimHQ: Boxes marked DESTINATION: USA are showing up in happy European homes of SimWare customers. Danish Squid posted this on the E.D. Forums regarding his recent delivery from SimWare: "Well I got mine aswell, fun thing though, on my box it says destination USA.... well somehow SimWare got their greedy little paws on it and shipped it to me.... and I'm impressed, nice sturdy feel to it and it can take my tough movements." Staffan I don't know how the boxes destined for the US ended up in Europe, could be a plan, or just a mistake on the part of TM or the Chinese fabricator's shipping dept. But it sure does not seem like an even global launch. I didn't expect this from TM, this isn't their first rodeo. I'm very glad about the positive early reviews on it. Who knew the trade route between China and Belgium was such a well greased machine!

Hmm I wonder if the BLT shipment date got pushed back again because of the large pre-order amount. I would not be surprised if they are waiting for a larger / slower bulk shipment versus the smaller shops that get smaller order more quickly.

My eyes are fine and I can see the 3d effect really well. It's just there are so many detractors to the technology that it has no appeal for me. Pro: 3d effect (which I admit is pretty cool for a while) Con's: Wearing awkward glasses Visible shutter effect Half the brightness of a regular image Smooth fast 120Hz screen effectively knocked down to regular 60Hz Limited to low-res tiny 1080p monitors TN LCD panels only with horrible colors, contrast and viewing angles Severe frame rate drop Improper depth of image items in tons of games such as menu's etc As you can see the Con list is quite extensive just for a sole 3d effect. Not only that, I guarantee people will be better players of games/sims in 2d versus 3d. You will not see any competitive games played in 3d for a very, very long time.

Bump, really interested in this!

Better feeling than reality? :huh: 3D in which you have to wear glasses is just a passing fad and will die out again like it has numerous times down through the years. I've tried DCS:BS and a lot of other games in 3D and was not impressed.

As I have thousands of hours in the UH-60, Kiowa and Bell 206, I wouldn't actually want to fly any of those in a simulator. I do like to change it up and sim on the fixed wing side once and a while though. I've had KA-50 on my computer now for a couple of years and never really played it. I fly real helicopters every day and I guess it would be more of the same. :joystick: I do look forward to getting my Warthog HOTAS and really trying out the A-10C. It is kinda cool that the A-10C and the UH-60 actually have some radios and avionics in common, makes learning the A-10C that much easier!

I feel sorry for you married guys. ;)

I think most pilots get tired of simulators. Todays military pilots spend so much time in simulators it kind of get's to you. I train new flight school students in the UH-60 Blackhawk and we spend a ton of time in 5-million dollar full motion simulators. That don't fly like the real thing.

Why in the world would you want the SU-25. It's been done, what twice already? Not to mention it offers nothing more than a ground attack aircraft to move mud which the KA-50 and A-10C already do.

In real aircraft, the gate on the stick travel is "squared". The sticks do not rotate 360 deg in a perfect circle.

What do you mean don't have proper brake axis?

Just in: UK AIR FORCE The Harrier jump jet and Nimrod reconnaissance planes will be scrapped. Some squadrons of Tornado jets will be saved, but Joint Strike Fighter and a modernised Eurofighter will form the basis of the RAF fire power and there will be extra money for unmanned planes. The air transport fleet will be upgraded with A400M and A330 aircraft, replacing the Tristar and VC-10 from 2013. Some air force bases will close and 5,000 RAF personnel will lose their jobs over the next five years. Extra 12 Chinook helicopters to increase flexibility.

Do you guys get the horizon bending using 3 monitors in landscape? IE: does your view shift downwards on the side screens in relation to the center view?

You mean just landscape is bugged or? Portrait seems to work fine for me. I know the DCS series has always had issues with 3 monitor's and getting everything to look right.

Coming back from a mission with a hole or two through some non-critical part of the skin isn't exactly what I'd call proof of sustaining quite a bit of battle damage. The Harrier's size has nothing to do with it's radar cross section. It's facet's, shape, huge exposed turbofan blades give it a massive radar cross section. The B-2 is about 20x the size of a Harrier yet has a lower radar cross section than a large bird. Size is the smallest component to a radar cross section.

Just curious to see how various other pilots have their multi-monitors set up. Do you prefer landscape or portrait? On one hand, landscape gives you a much wider view of the world yet a much smaller cockpit. Portrait gives you a smaller view of the game world, but a much higher detailed view of the cockpit and the world. Pic of my setup portrait mode (KA-50) 4800x2560 resolution: Original thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=58191

I will add some pictures here of A-10C once I get my Track IR up and running.

An A-10 being able to take a "little more" damage versus a Harrier? :huh: A Harrier is a light weight virtually non-armored single engine aircraft. Out of currently flown aircraft, I would wager it is one of the most vulnerable to enemy fire. Sub-sonic, high radar cross section, relatively thin skinned, large single engine with tons of vulnerable ducting etc. Would still be fun to fly though!

Yes I ordered them direct from Germany to the US. You don't have to pay the VAT tax either which helps cut the shipping charges if I remember correctly.

The X65 is a nice stick for F-16. For sim's in general though, I think the Warthog Hotas is better. Virtually all fixed wing aircraft have move able sticks and all helicopters do. With the Warthog HOTAS I can hop from A-10C to WWI/WWII planes, helicopters etc without a hiccup. The X65 is really suited more for just fighter jets only like the F-16/F-22/F-35 etc.

Ya sounds like multiple bulk shipments that are staggered.

The Harrier is a good aircraft, but it's just a VTOL version of the A-10 with more speed but less survivability. To say the Harrier class aircraft do so well against dedicated fighters is going overboard. In order to have VTOL capability a lot of sacrifices need to be made. Especially when needed for a VTOL takeoff, the payload is very limited. Combat radius is small, the GR9 doesn't even have radar and relies on AIM-9's. A modern fighter with look-down shoot-down radar wouldn't even have to get into a turning fight for it to be toast before it even got into the Harrier's tiny air-air radius. VTOL does have it's mission, that's why their is a version of that planned for the F-35 for amphibious assault ships. If you take an entity like the USAF that has ton's of money and doesn't need VTOL capability, there are better options for each role. Hence why the USAF doesn't have Harriers. The Harrier isn't a air-air and air-ground win all card, or obviously everyone would be flying harriers when in fact they are low quantity aircraft.