ShuRugal

If your budget allows for it, I would strongly suggest the X55 or X56 over the X52. The build quality it a little bit better, having split throttles is very useful for twin-engine aircraft, and invaluable on the P-51 (one for throttle, one for RPM governor). The stick on the X-55/56 also has a threaded coupler which allows it to be quickly disconnected from the base. I've just ordered a busted X55 off ebay for practically nothinh so i can salvage this part and make a stick extension with it, rather than having to do a hack job on my good stick. Having owned the X-52, the X-52 Pro, and the X-55, the X-55 is hands-down the best value for the money. I don't anticipate buying a new stick again, ever, unless this one gets smashed.

whoever wrote this thing is a real jerk. F-18s with AIM-120 against MiG-21... what a joke.

if you can see the compressor blades from the exhaust, you no longer have a working engine.

you can, but it's pointless. If you want to get maximum continuous power out of your aircraft, back off a fraction at a time when you see that light come on, just until the point it goes out. Any power setting applied while those lights are on only has the effect of slowing your rotors down.

because, IRL, it's not a button to push, you would just slide your thumb under the cover by muscle memory as you went for the release... same for the parachute and flare dispenser buttons. Opening those would be an unconscious action for a real pilot; whereas, in the sim, we have to remember to hit the key for it. personally, i don't like on critical functions like shooting, dropping flares, and popping the chute. if you want that for added realism, put a cover flap on your joystick buttons.

I never use anti-dust when flying at anything over 50 meters AGL. Turn it on for FARP operations, NoE flying, and terrain-masked fighting positions. Outside of those regimes, all leaving it on does is stop you forgetting to turn it on. Anti-ice, however, is a must when flying at altitude or winter conditions. I managed to lose both engines to icing doing On the Other Side once. Autorated back down the whole length of that last valley before the ridge, frantically working to restart the engines. That was a rush.

As a customer, I am far more satisfied with Leatherneck's choice of development priorities over, say, BST. Leatherneck, at least, seems to be interested in providing us with comprehensive training missions, detailed operator's manuals, and rapid response to critical bugs. Honestly, I'd rather not have all the fancy cockpit lighting animations than not have a manual.

should give it a go some time. you can get impressive horizontal speeds and climb rates... for about 90 seconds.

That puts you in a minority among Eagle pilots on the 104th. As was already mentioned, you can easily verify this by watching the number of Eagles shrink dramatically when the mission rotates to a non-AMRAAM loadout restriction. Except, of course, that without knowing the launch parameters, there is no way to judge the reliability of the missile. What we DO know is that most (all?) of the Su-27 pilots involved in that conflict were mercenaries. Typically, mercenaries are NOT prepared to give their life in pursuit of a kill. Those who fight for pay have a strong incentive to survive the fight so they can spend their pay. While this is only an assumption, it is a fairly reasonable bet that those shots were taken from low-risk positions.

I can't help but read this as "I'm tired of other pilots shooting me down, but rather than put the time and effort into improving myself, I just want to make them do worse" already have it Already have it. check. check.

Fly the Flanker before you say that the R-27 is outperforming. The performance of all missiles right now is significantly sub-par, and SARH missiles in particular have been effectively useless for several months now.

the flight model used by the P-51 (and the TF-51) does not have any such scripted thing as an "axis origin". The way the aircraft rotates is determined by actual distribution of mass (variable with loadout and fuel state) and the forces generated by airflow over the wings, fuselage, and control surfaces. If you are feeling the plane drop by its nose on landing flare, I would say that your approach speed is too low and/or your AoA is too high at the start of the flare.

I would recommend that, as your speed slows to where you need to re-engage NWS, you apply a momentary over-steer (IE, if you need 50% left, go 100% left for an instant) and then release rudder entirely, then engage NWS and apply steering as needed. This way, you will "kick" the nose out a little bit, and then it will swing back in the second you are neutral before you turn NWS back on. If you time it correctly, you should be able to transition from rudder to NWS with very minor visible effects. Alternately, you could steer with toebrakes as rudders become ineffective, and leave NWS off. This sounds like a bug. If NWS is disengaged, the wheel casters to stay aligned with your direction of travel. Only time the nose wheel would ever be at 45 degrees is when making a sharp turn, in which case you should not be changing NWS (on or off) until the turn is complete.

the best thing i have found is to just hover semi-manually. leave FD off, and trim the bird into a hover using your preferred method (tap or hold trimmer). I have found that as i become a better combat pilot, i spend less and less time fighting from a stationary hover. Even when I do still hover to engage targets, I typically do so for less than a minute before moving again. The only exception to this is when playing certain campaign missions that have a large number of units spread over a wide, flat area, and there is no A2A or AAA/SAM threat. While this sim is very realistic in terms of aircraft modelling, mission design all too often falls short in the realm of the ability of the targets to fight back. Unless you are going against a force with absolutely no access to modern weaponry, a helicopter pilot should never stop worrying about the possibility of return fire from the ground. Even in a heavily asymmetric war (see USSR vs Afghanistan), helicopters are very vulnerable. Staying in one place for a significant amount of time is just asking for some jackass with a jeep and a stinger to sneak around you and make your day miserable.

Depending on how much room for computer hardware is in the missile, you could program the missile to gauge closure based on the increase in relative gain from when it entered HOJ mode. Since received signal is proportional to the square of range, when signal has doubled, range has decreased to 1/4 of last known value.

Cabin fans animated, still beta. Hope you didn't lose any money on that one...

Well, that makes sense. I cannot find specs for 30×90RB, but in the following image, you can clearly see that the projectile is significantly longer than the one fired by 30×113.

The thing is, it's not just a difference in propellant. The shell itself is shorter, and therefore contains less explosive filler. Quick bit of googling reveals that the 30x113mm round used in the DEFA-554 fires a 237-gram projectile, while the 30x165mm round used by the GSh 30mm guns fires a projectile weighing in at 384-403 grams. I would expect a pretty damn devastating difference in performance/effect on target between those two rounds.

Kopp may be a complete whackjob, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong to say that an aircraft with a mach 2+ top speed will make a better launch platform than aircraft with mach 1.8 and 1.6 top speeds. I don't know if perhaps English is not your native language, but "IRs are active" is, in fact, exactly what "Active radar missles (including IRs)" means. Your use of "including" in that way declares that "IRs" belongs in the category "Active radar missiles". What might have been better phrasing would be "Active radar missiles (as well as IR missiles)", which would indicate that the next clause in your sentence applies equally to the separate groups "Active radar missiles" and "IR missiles". There was certainly no need to cuss up a storm over it, intentional or not, your phrasing did not match your meaning, and you can hardly expect people to have read your mind.

Then i must have misread something, because I thought you were talking about changing supply vehicles. That's what I was afraid of.

That's not quite what I am looking to do. I am not trying to resupply AI units, I want to be able to manipulate the munitions available to players at a FARP via scripted event. Specifically, I want a FARP to start with 0 munitions, and to have MI-8/UH-1/KA-50 players deliver ammo to the FARP.

Is it possible to set scripted events to add supplies to a FARP? I am trying to write an element into a mission that allows players to ferry ammunition to a FARP via slingload, but I cannot seem to find any documentation for manipulating ammunition levels??

I recently ran across an application for Android and IOS which allows extremely customizable shortcut and macro buttons to be sent from your tablet/phone to your PC. I have been fiddling around with it since yesterday, working on a KA-50 profile. The software does not seem to allow for feedback from the game (unfortunately) so switches are not state-aware. I have been using cut-and-paste graphics from the cockpit textures for buttons, some of them are fairly ugly, but it's still a WIP. functions presently featured include: Datalink PVI-800 R-800 tuner knobs SPU-9 selector switch Weapon control panel Target Mode controls Exterior lights The software is available for free, though if you want to use more than two custom "grids" of buttons at the same time, you have to pa ~$1 per additional grid, up to a maximum of 10 grids (fairly reasonable, especially considering the funcionality) The control software is available at: http://www.roccat.org/en-US/Products/Gaming-Software/Power-Grid/Download/ KA-50 Profile is available at: http://www.roccat.org/en-US/Products/Gaming-Software/Power-Grid/Store/Grids/Games/Simulation/755/

I adjust zoom on center detent of thumb slider by using the "user curve" option in the axis commands binding page.

But, seeing as how they are fairly intuitive and reasonable assumptions to make, how about clarifying what exactly is wrong with them, instead of just saying "LOL dude ur so rong"?