xaoslaad

Thanks. That was unexpected, though still a today purchase (or tomorrow, or whenever...). Just something more to look forward to.

Will the CC be in this initial release or does that come later?

Probably. He had a steep angle of attack coming out too, so in combination it probably got him. The engines take a minute to spool, so going flaps up, pulling up too hard, and not waiting a bit for the engines probably brought on the crash. He was at good speed and descent rate to land, should have just touched down :)

One or two might be cool, but I don't want to see even a half dozen. It'd be cool to force a (live) non-combat jet pilot to have to land at a cleared out airbase and have to wait on the ground while hostiles are incoming to load evacuees and refuel while his buddies in the fast movers and/or mud movers have to fend off the baddies coming to get him. But this is a very niche scenario for a combat simulator. One Learjet or something would be fully sufficient for this kind of thing.

It might have been hard to hear as I play with the volume rather low, but there was very judicious use of flares, which is why I guess the missiles flew so wide left and right.

Though I wouldn't discount the massive satisfaction from flinging 700 pounds of explosive at a wee little man with a missile in need of an attitude adjustment! Sometimes the wrong tool for the job is just SO much fun. I mean sure, I could have killed this guy with a steady burst of gun from 3 plus km out, but why not cram a pile of S-13's down his throat instead? :thumbup: Though, yes, I agree, in terms of realism, not so much.

Cheers http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2293060&postcount=8

I think he's just nutz! :lol:

You can easily kill AAA with Vikhrs. For SAM's consider a Phantasmagoria pod and Kh-58U's or Kh-25MPU's if they are radar guided. IR SAM's can probably be managed with Vikhrs if you're careful as well.

LOL. You could have landed at 320 no problem. That chute would stop you in no time flat. All you had to do was hit W a bit to slow some, P, to pop the chute once the engines were idle and you were golden. Your decent rate was even good, even if the approach was a bit low. (< 3 m/s). Good video though. The Su-25T is awesome. Practice the SEAD mission and see how it works and your respect for it will grow immensely; the A-10C has some things over the Su-25T, but that is one area hands down owned by the frog.

You can more easily see and identify a target and set a SPI using the TGP. From there you need to switch to MAV to track and fire. If you use the Right MFD for TGP and MAV this is literally a right flick of the Coolie hat on the throttle, then China Forward Long to slew to SPI, optionally China Forward Short to zoom, and TMS up to track. If you don't have a Warthog it's probably worthwhile to set it up on your HOTAS if/stick if you have hats to spare. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1175345&postcount=39

Ya, I was not familiar with all that originally, but did come across it. Sad joke because it would be an awesome plane. Crossing my fingers, but realize it's a desparate hope.

I doubt they would limit themselves just because it's a turboprop. There may be lots of other reasons not to do it, but that hardly seems like a serious one.

I was conpletely unfamiliar with it as well, but my reaction on reading about it was similar. This thing has a targeting pod, LGB's, Hellfires, DAGRs, insane .50 caliber machine guns, something that looks like a small cruise missile, rockets, and even a couple other things I haven't been able to identify. You could do some serious damage with this plane.

Cobras post about the AT-802U introduced me to the plane. Now I want it and I'll be disappoint if we don't get it.

In real life? I have no idea. In the game/sim? yes. When were you at Futenma? I was around the corner on Foster '05-'06 with MWSS-172.

The break is not very powerful. This is expected. Don't taxi too fast and rely on the chute for stopping when landing. You will not stop on a dime in the Su-25(T) using the wheel brake. I just replied to your other thread too. I think you are riding the break way to hard at the beginning of your landing and bursting the tire (overheating probably; hot brakes are a real concern) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhi3DfEB_yc

I can't tell, but are you riding the break the entire time? Try using it for short bursts instead if so. Rely on the chute to slow you most of the way down. They are nice landings otherwise though. I think basically what you're seeing is applying the brakes way too much at high speed and basically causing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhi3DfEB_yc

You need to employ differential breaking to turn the MiG-21. Apply the break and use thr pedals to turn. There is no nose wheel steering. With a little practice it's not hard.

rename the .trk file that's saved after joining the mission to .miz. Optionally, open it in the mission editor and resave to ditch the extra track stuff. I personally have no problem with this, but some people flip their lids over it.

I'd imagine they'd do like the C-101EB/CC if they wanted to release multiple variants and make it one module? Regardless the AT-802U looks cool and would be worth a purchase. I agree MiG's more modern than the 21Bis would be great as well though.

Are the comments about the AT-802U serious? Because reading up on that thing I would buy it in a minute. Prop or no it looks more capable than many of the other third party aircraft we've gotten to date. DAGR and Hellfire missiles, LGB's, rockets, machine guns, sharp sticks. Looks very cool and versatile.

Read the comments. It's practice refuel in case of a fouled deck. If they need fuel and there is an aircraft that can't get off the deck or some other reason they cant land. Pretty cool that they have such a scenario well thought out.

My understanding is that anyone can make an A-4 Skyhawk sim or model. But if you wanted to call it a Douglas A-4 you'd need to license the Douglas name. I guess because of the other work VEAO does they feel that that is important. Or maybe my understanding is wrong.