Corrigan

Agreed. This is what I was alluding to above ("forum members aren't representative..."). Since they still have the realistic code (as per Cobra on MA's forum), I think this is as clear-cut an option candidate as anything.

Horizontal position for take-off and landing runs. :)

My stick suddenly developed a "clunk", but I cured that by opening it up and rotating the main spring a bit. Are you sure it's due to the ridges?

LN were referring to internal tests. It's also important to keep in mind that the people who bother visiting the forums aren't representative of the total set of MiG owners in all aspects.

Cool! How many members do you have? It would be cool to have some vJokers vs. MA scenario some time!

@Vibora: I meant no insult. I suggest that you ask yourself whether you'd prefer an option between the two, or only the simplified. Those are the only two scenarios I think are realistically on the table. @Tango: I know, and if I developed the module I probably would have left the realistic version in, and pointed the people complaining to the literature (for better and worse!). However, here we are. I'm sure you can see why I've chosen to ask for an option rather than having them change it for everyone.

Do you really think so? The poll asks The very first line of the OP is

Ah! Cool. That's actually really nice to hear. I might turn them on, then! In MP, is the client setting used at all? Or is it forced to the serverside setting?

I really don't think your RAM is an issue. Your tests seem to confirm this. I'd spend all my money on CPU or GPU.

Why would you spend that much on a GPU while neglecting your CPU like that? Or are you in the process of upgrading? Yeah, I was about to say: a test worth doing might be to turn the resolution WAY down, as low as it can go, and see if you get any performance gains. If you don't, it's probably the CPU limiting you.

Weird. I would have guessed that you saw more than 10% difference. I agree that you need to post your settings though. EDIT: I agree with the above, you're probably processor-limited.

Maybe the devs should take a look at this, then.

If you mean in external view, mission editor etc, then yes! Go to gameplay options and set units to metric.

Yes, but he's saying it's happening too fast. I haven't tested myself but it sounds like it.

Yep, this is what I was referring to. The distances we're considering could well be such (distance to hud is maybe 10 times the distance between the eyes) that this makes an important difference.

Why would it be in ft/s? That speed is km/h (knots) if the unit system is set to metric (imperial) in the options.

Read the discussion thread and the Dolphin quotation.

Alright, so we're 30% off, it seems. Could use a tune, I guess, but it's hardly game-breaking.

No, I don't think so. You'd still be able to turn like now, tightly under full braking. The only difference, I think, would be that the unrealistically good rudder authority/"nosewheel steering" we have now, under no braking at all, would be gone. And also, I'm proposing this as an option.

Yeah, that's not gonna cut it. :smilewink:

Do you have hydraulics? I don't own this aircraft but I guess that's how they're controlled.

Yeah, the thread title (as opposed to the poll title) is maybe what confused you. I agree that it's a bad title, but I can't edit it, sadly. Maybe a friendly moderator could affix "option" right before the question mark.

What? No it isn't. This poll is about an OPTION letting us choose between the settings "realistic" and "simplified", similar to the engine management option. I'll edit for clarity though!

Which unit is that? km/h?

I posted a poll here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131408 That's probably a better way of letting LN know how we feel.