lunaticfringe

When beczl ran off with the crowdfunded Fishbed loot, Leatherneck answered the call. The newly disenfranchised associates from beczl's con game- who never had access to any of the funds from the pre-order promises, and whose work was stolen through IP holdings, went right back to work and redeveloped the MiG-21 a second time. The only reason its release was as fast as it was stemmed from the fact they were doing work they'd already done once, and knew the pitfalls and difficulties from that prior effort. What is important to remember, and remains forgotten by a substantial amount of the community, is that Leatherneck only began to make an income from the Fishbed *after* it was released with new sales; every prior pre-order sale received their copy gratis, meaning that module made them, all told, perhaps 60% of what it should have. While it's understandable, to a point, that people would be a bit more antsy around LNS at the start, given the innuendo made about beczl and such, they more than made up for what happened. Honestly, while they looked, and continue to do so in the guise of M3 to make up for the additional promises, there was never any real incentive for them to do anything beyond copies of the module to the crowdfunded. LNS didn't do the community wrong, yet this fact underlined much of the animus towards them, at least early on. Ultimately, that is a substantial piece of why I believe they changed their both their social and preorder policies in the development of the Viggen; there's a point where the back and forth over insubstantial updates isn't worth the effort. Better to open dialogue when there is substantial work to share, and to open the sales of the module when it's already been handed over and slotted for upload by Eagle, than deal with the constant begging for scraps by dogs looking for something to bark at. The same policy has clearly applied here. The separation was long in coming, and took place on their schedule. When it mattered for the public to know, they announced the amicable split, producing as much transparency as the public needs to know about what has occurred. The respective teams of Magnitude 3 and Heatblur are experienced, and both have schedules they expect to meet within the year. And both have not only set new standards with their releases, they went well beyond what was actually their responsibility from the get go- a class action suit would have found the members of LNS blameless in the crowdfunding debacle, leaving them without need to give away a substantial piece of work. I don't see the separation as lucky- I see it as responsible. Given past evidence, I wouldn't expect anything less from this group. No matter the cause of the split, they handle things in a reasonable fashion.

This. The primaries for the affected modules have moved to the respective new teams- those who maintain the MiG-21 and are developing the Corsair to Magnitude 3, and the Viggen and F-14 developers to Heatblur. Heatblur has been a known quantity, at least as being somehow party to all of this, since the Viggen trailer. So whether or not we as the public knew (which is frankly immaterial), the teams knew it was coming and were preparing for it. Personally, I look at this as more of an opportunity and a positive for the community than a concern; it doesn't matter how good an organization is, or how well individual teams are managed- if a firm reaches a point of real divergence in planning, overall goals, scheduling, methods, or even team culture, often the best move you can make is a subsidiary shift, or actual separation. Both of these teams have experience making modules at the highest level. Both teams are maintaining development rights to existing, as well as future aircraft, meaning ED knew this was in the works as well and evaluated both groups as being capable to their requirements. And both teams have made it very clear they have 2017 product release targets there going to meet- if not for credibility reasons, pure survival. A team isn't going to spin itself if it doesn't legitimately think it can't make its target. And by Dolphin's information, they're doing it from partially behind the 8 ball. That last is a gutsy move. Both of these teams are taking a short from the perspective of the lean periods that can happen in long lead development. But if they think they can do it, and ED thinks they can do it, and the evidence that they can do it is on your hard drive, then I wouldn't bet against it.

Kind of like the little piece of aforementioned paper would help theirs. The condition of that parcel isn't a good look for any business, small or otherwise. Justified anger at the lack of concern regarding his purchase would be placated in a small fashion if the onus wasn't on him to go find information that should be there on the spot.

Just half an hour ago your argument was that Raytheon was constrained on range by nature of the available profile and engine size, and now you're mentioning clipped fins. Interesting.

The one factor that comes to mind in these conversations is the nature of the target pricing for the original product. Everything hinged around that number, and what is now bordering on a four-year digression with more edits than one can count in the original post comes back to the need to hit those original numbers. And now, for those who were only ever interested in an F/A-18 grip, everything else that has come down the pike has priority- in order to make the originally claimed prices. To me, it's not so much the wait- it's the fact that there's always something new required to make the prices work for what the original claim was. That's concerning, because until a given object is actually fabricated its cost for production remains an uncertainty. Molds may fail to meet specification, reject rates may be higher than expected, finish time may be longer than originally projected. Comparisons to software, as have been made, don't work, because the design and functionality of a manufactured grip is finite- you know how many buttons, you know the switch sizes, and you have all of the necessary dimensions. The catalogs of necessary ICs and electronics to populate are all accessible. But it's the actual making of the thing that gets in the way. Personally, I get the impression, based on the impatience, that it might be time for Hegy to test the waters and actually produce a grip to a level he would sell, as to get the experience in and confirm whether or not his assumptions are correct. That, and to find his cost at low rate production, to perhaps give some of the more antsy a chance to pay a premium to get what will continue to be the longest lead item. And note- I don't say that as someone interested in the Hornet grip, because I've got a Suncom conversion I'm working on. Simply a matter of wanting to see something tangible happen on this front- whether it comes to market or not.

I'm good with the three resistors, although does that permit it to take three additional switches? I've got an actual F-15's Auto Acquisition switch that I'll be wanting to wire in accounting for two, and intend on dual-staging the trigger for number three. I'm comfortable with more wires to the grip if this isn't doable, but asking since you mention it. And apologies for the late response- completely forgot about this conversation until I looked at the grip on my workbench earlier today.

Look at Guillemot's host: Cloudflare. Somebody is likely burning the midnight oil this weekend trying to ascertain if the compromise did any damage, and if so, rebuild safely.

That's debatable from two points: 1. DCS couldn't multithread to save it's own life, and 2. There is substantial overhead on the GPU front with most mid-level and enthusiast cards, if ED considers what is being modeled and how it parallels In this day and age, with the number of base and virtual cores starting at four as a minimum, the lack of multiple thread optimizations is a travesty. And on the second, if you consider that specular lighting and HDR effects are simply the result of reflectivity in the visible electromagnetic spectrum, well, you could do a damned sight serious amount of that work if you were willing to let the card drive. As to what is understood and can be modeled, I'd invite anybody to get themselves an associate membership over at crows.org and take a look at the lectures and documents- this isn't really anything outside of the realm of what someone who wants to learn the math can get a really good grasp on.

When having to deal with the differences of opinion regarding the facts of performance of the type, the presentation of minutiae is the determinant of what opinions on the matter are correct. Range begets time. Time begets tactics and detection. Twenty nautical miles at 1000 knots closure is a minute and fifteen seconds difference. Given current effective ranges of missiles in DCS (20-30 nautical miles at best), adding in something able to swat a fighter at two to three times that range is a substantial factor in relation to what takes place on a server and why. That is time, that is tactics, and that is a major shift in what occurs. It's not a major shift if LN doesn't play the weapon straight, but that's been the point of separating out the minutiae- to define the terms that will determine the impact. It has every bit of relevance to DCS' multiplayer environment, given the offerings of a map to use it, carrier operations over substantial blue water, and the nature of what the server owner chooses to do to present a threat to Blue Air, and restrictions placed on AIM-54 availability on the server. All of these factors have been discussed, because they all go into the equation of what will happen in DCS multiplayer. These things are both server and modeled system dependent. You can't ascertain these things in a vacuum.

"How is Ferrari's untested chassis and engine combination going to shake up F1 next season?" "Hey, don't talk about raw displacement, rotating mass dimensions, boost, fuel consumption, the length of the wheelbase, braking power, or similar conceptual downfornce concepts in this conversation!" With all due respect, how does anyone expect to discuss what a new variable will do to the multitude of server implementations, when there is such a wide difference in opinions on the capabilities of that variable, without attempting to define what that variable should, in fact, be capable of doing? What, is OP desiring we go through every possible permutation based on observed MP server and opinion of capability, or are we allowed to cut through the chaff and pare things down to a reasonable discussion? Because if not, the discussion is potentially a lot longer, with more heat, and absolutely no answers for you. Seriously- the continual lack of willingness to talk facts to derive a conceptual answer around here is amusing.

Protip: If you don't like the discussion, and have nothing to add to it, you are free to move along.

I don't need to use the video. It's also losing 33 to 45% of that weight over the course of its impulse, depending on variant, and is programmed to optimize its loss of inertia in accordance to target range, closure, and altitude at launch. See the attached pages from a USN paper I had to FOIA from 1977. Note, very closely, the statement with Figure 10- that includes the AIM-7E-2, AIM-7E-4, and AIM-7F. And that the AIM-7M didn't receive an aerodynamic update- only the course guidance optimization in software. What matters in the intercept is energy, and the gimbal limit differences, as observable by the aforementioned video (because I'm not with my external with further notes on the matter) are immaterial in the comparison. (Also, on the matter of inertia optimization, note figure 8- most sources will tell you the AIM-54 lofts to 70k, when in fact it'll go almost 150% of that, without instruction, if it's guidance calculations require that to make the range.) The thousands on the carrier are more important than the fighter. Phoenix was the ace in the hole. If presented with three battalions of Soviet Naval Aviation Tu-22s and their supporting spotter and EW packages, the priority are those: spotters, EW, and launchers. The only fighter type threat that Phoenix would be spent on in a 70's-mid 80's OAB situation would be a threat to the E-2s- MiG-25s/MiG-31s, if in fact those had been assigned to assist, which is debatable. One of the most important aspects missing to most regarding the doctrinal choice to limit AIM-54 employment until near the fall of the Soviet Union with the operational availability to PVO and VVS of the MiG-29 and the Su-27, is the understanding of Outer Air Battle and the tactics employed to do so, based on the capabilities of what the Soviets were presenting as a threat. If, for example, your threat bomber is launching a weapon with a 120 mile range, your keep-out range is 120 nm plus downrange flight for your DLI's best time to altitude, with some fudge for time to acquire and get AIM-54 rounds off- say, 160 miles total. Swap that for a Kh-32, or even a Kh-22M, and now your dynamics change, because you're not even trying to kill the shooter- you're trying to kill the targeting group that will feed the coordinates; now you need to beat their signals detection and radar, because a nuclear cruise missile can kill within a radius the carrier can't get out of if they get lucky, meaning your keep-out is two or more times that original number- if they pass the CAPs, and potentially anyone on the chain in relief, the remaining DLI has got to have enough time to get down range, pick them up, and kill the interlopers before they can pin down the boat. And now that 100+ nm range of the AIM-54 is the difference between success and failure, because if the strike spotters see the boat, everybody has to switch responsibilities on the fly in a EMCON/high-jamming environment, and that's a huge risk. Those CAP guys need to now be looking for cruise missiles instead of bombers. Those guys may already be Winchester and heading back, meaning somebody has to come up and take their position- and the situation may entail an inability for them to relay that information back. Kill those searchers, though, and you force the strike group to close and attempt direct acquisition, buying the carrier group time to reload for spent Standard or Sea Sparrow, the boat time to vanish, and the air wing to rearm and restage the grid. Does it seem strange? Maybe. Given you go on cruise with *maybe* a hundred Phoenix rounds, and you need viability to deal with easily fifty to sixty aircraft or cruise missiles in a strike (not accounting for SM capability from the escorts because you require certainty), with any one of those potential bombers or cruise missile targets meaning certain death to the group- every one of those AIM-54s is worth its weight in gold. Navy paid perhaps half a million per once the total bill was done, but every single round was an insurance policy for well over $6 billion, easy, when accounting for the full air wing and the training of every man and woman on the CV. The other pertinent factor to be considered is that the USSR didn't have a fighter-carried stick with the range of the AIM-7F, let alone the Phoenix (barring the Foxbat with the R-33, which was already going to catch a -54 if it was in the airspace); nor, for that matter, did anybody else. Subsequently, you don't have to bother with the heavy rounds to kill Floggers, Fishbeds, etc. Put R-27s out there, even with their worse intercept performance, and you're getting back into the unacceptable rate of exchange area, which then makes Phoenix the solution in hand. Present them with a strike package as escort, though, you'd likely see the old rules apply.

Steve Davies isn't a member, and has never been a member, of the USAF. I would not expect Dildy, a former F-15 pilot with no direct experience in either seat of the F-14, or with the AIM-54, to be classified as an SME. And having reviewed volumes of data from the USN, substantial amounts having been directed to LN on the matter, as well as direct conversations of numerous pilots and RIOs, I'm going with them. And the nature of the answer to that question is exactly as stated in my response. It does an excellent job of answering your question. You asked if the AIM-54 is effective against fighters. It is. It's effectiveness is directly related to energy state at the endgame- the same as it is for every other missile on the planet. In the same respect that an AIM-9M is only able to snag a non-maneuvering target out head on at 7 miles, or an AIM-120C the same at 35+, an AIM-54 is going to only hit big stuff with consistent relative closure at 100 nm. Shorten the range, and its ability goes up. Halve those respective values based on specific starting impulse and guidance, and they become dangerous. Now, if you want to redefine your question, rather than leaving it open-ended, we can review data and come up with a more specific answer. Otherwise, what you see is what you get until you're in the environment based on LN's aerodynamic model and testing.

The Doppler "notch" is 90 degrees. Relative impact when nearing or "in" the notch is dependent on the weapon and its signal processing capability to determine what speed of targets are rejected as they near 0 relative velocity to the radar. Re: "bomber killer": A missile doesn't care what the target is; it cares that it can see the target, and whether or not it can achieve an intercept within parameters for a direct collision or kinetic impact within lethal miss distance and warhead detonation. This is an AIM-54C+ engaging a 6G maneuvering drone within the heart of the Sparrow/AMRAAM envelope. It doesn't care. It sees the target. It navigates to a probable intercept point. And it maintains enough energy to complete a direct collision. As to the AWG-9 functioning as a pure spotlight, and shifting only to targets, the description is wholly incorrect. While the radar used a phase lock while in the TWS pattern to direct an individual missile's attention to a target, pure spotlighting would grant no target rejection or re-acquisition in the event of a momentary target loss, of which the combination was able to perform. Simple spotlighting would also entail the loss of all other tracks within the selected TWS region, which did not occur, either. To do so would essentially mean that any AIM-54 that was not programmed to launch at the immediate initiation of the first would be unavailable until the spotlight sequence ended, and that is in no way the case. At the same time, the AIM-54 was able to go to active state, maintaining the original guidance state, after a substantial period of lost guidance, allowing for the potential of intercept- or, more interestingly, the acquisition of another return in the event of a target being downed by another missile. Which is to say, the origin of "maddog" functionality.

If you were paying attention, you'd note I'd positioned pages from the English manual on this forum in two posts. I've read it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Stating "read the manual" when challenged for data for a contention you make doesn't fly when everyone else has.

If your argument is over threshold, pre-flare, you're welcome to stop right there, because that was never the contention being made by anyone. The post I was responding to wasn't speaking of threshold speed. "Landing speed" isn't "threshold speed", but the speed at which the wheels touch tarmac. Flying the numbers puts it down at 260-280. Heavy on IFE on takeoff? 280-300. Low fuel/empty deadstick IFE? 250 is eligible as witnessed by the data provided. But that's not what was being discussed. We're not talking the edge of the envelope in an emergency case- what was being discussed was the normal range- 260-280. "Suppose the poster compared touchdown speeds"? That's exactly what he did. That's a proper touchdown inaccuracy of 40-70 kmh. Ludicrous. Individual presents an argument without factual basis, and is directed to provide evidence; this has been directed to both Foxbat and Johny in this very thread. Statements of opinion are not fact, and are not, as you say, "reported data"; they are simply opinion until substantiated. In opposition to this, I provide factual data provided by the manufacturer- the same data that the FM was built to model and represents. There are facts, and there are opinions. One is actual data; the other, not. There have been requests for facts from the detractors, and, as normal, none are provided- simply opinion. This process of exchange gets tired after a good long while, because there are individuals who refuse to present anything outside of supposition with a side of insult. And so you'll excuse me when I see no point in "good faith", when the same people over and over fail to operate under those same terms. If they expect facts in response, they can provide them with their contentions. Otherwise, they are indeed full of it. I don't concern myself with exaggerations of the average attempting to defame, when flying the aircraft in normal conditions to the numbers presents the correct values. It's not a straw man at all; it's the nature of the business. People will choose to make arguments without evidence, under the expectation of being placated. So either LN hits the correct numbers and have their work called fiction for it, or they pander to the ignorant and degrade the quality of the product to those who expect better.

Part of this stems from MP PvP servers being set up essentially with balanced numeric sides, for the most part. If one were to actually design a mission using some of the outside scripting methods such as MOOSE, using the ability to toss in autopilot aircraft to increase volume on one side or the other based in response to player preferences, and structure those into the scenario itself appropriately, you'd fix a healthy portion of that; reason being that once you start putting random packs of AI MiG-23s, MiG-29s, and F-5s and F-16s in the landscape in response to whichever side has a higher number of players, you force the issue of cohesion and support for survivability.

Doesn't refute the point at all, if you review the factory documentation provided. Which is negated by the burst speed as illustrated by numerous takeoff and landing rotations exhibited here. Should you follow the instructions as provided in the manual pages attached across two posts, you'd have no problem finding this to be the case. But that's just pedantry expecting someone to RTFM. Which, I note, is interesting- Leatherneck, operating in a pedant's environment, is expected to uphold the opinions of non-pedants and the technically ignorant, lest they have their work be classified as "broken" or "science fiction". See: lack of good faith. Repeatedly stating a performance model that, as shown, complies properly with real world limitations, is broken- without any evidentiary proof to the contrary, is the very antithesis of "good faith". Someone acting in good faith with the supposed expectation of realism would present an actual case, using easily acquired facts as provided to end user nations by the party that constructed the aircraft. That is to say, they'd "put up". Instead, they dispute and insult rather than presenting evidence, because if they actually put forth some pedantic effort, they'd be forced to admit their disputes are invalid and they have chosen to look foolish in public. And we can't have that, so let's just excuse them as having acted in "good faith", as you call it- because it makes everybody feel better for being ignorant. ;)

Normal landing speed is 260-280 kmh. Gear overspeed on touchdown is 330kmh. Even the emergency overweight profile has touchdown at less than 330kmh. You're full of it.

And now we're back to Phoenix being a death ray. More than anything, the AIM-54 may be the factor that forces EDs hand to stop talking about the missile process and start fixing it, if Leatherneck's representation can match up reasonably with RL performance figures. Consider it the equivalent of air to ground radar implementation with the Viggen having gotten them to start pressing on the Hornet in that vein. The development of that type, as far as anyone should be concerned, was stagnant until LN came in and pressured an area ED has never touched. Between carrier operations on the Ranger, and the AWG-9/Phoenix combination, there are a lot of parallel aspects Leatherneck is reaching to fulfill that Eagle has been promising for years. It's going to be time for them to put up and take the lead with Nimitz, the Hornet, and finally start fixing a host of issues that have long plagued the system that tie these together.

How much for a PCB?

If its okay with Mikoyan, who provided this manual in English to Egypt, then it should be perfectly fine for you. Seriously- you're actually going to ask if 135 knots is too fast to land a tailed delta. Ho-kay.

The answer is yes, but that's not the panel the F-14 has for the RIO to access the INS. But this is. If you find a copy of F14AAA-1, you'll find the operation of the Computer Address Panel in chapters 20 and 25, along with notes in 24 in relation to it's usage for TARPS.