PLP

This^^. Or as someone else said, turn it off when they hit the mine and it will stay a great movie. Loved the atmosphere, and some scenes depicting GI occupation of Germany were very believable.

Don't forget that the trim is mostly needed for spring-loaded joysticks. I haven't trimmed a plane since I started using my DIY pure-friction-no-spring stick, and I've almost forgotten all about the Su-27 negative g of death too. I guess that the problem with some DCS modules is that it is hard to handle situations where a huge force would be needed to move the joystick without using ffb technology. Also not sensing g's removes some natural apprehensions I guess.

I'm also willing to bet it's no fake, fakes never are so mundane, they always are completely over the top. Also every tiniest detail feels right, the slew of the camera, the details on the 27 as Kucky pointed out, all tending to confirm it's real. Cool vid in any case.

Also don't forget that AD converters often lose a bit or two to noisiness. So if you have a 10-bit ADC, chances are you only effectively have 200 points. Then you don't know if you are using the whole range -> even less points. Use a stick calibration tool (either in DCS or Windows control panel), and then if you notice that your stick is smooth in there but not in DCS you finally have a point to make. Until then it is pure speculation.

Yeah I did for myself a long time ago where the role of the player was to intercept targets, and Identify friendly/foe (you could then shoot the target down, or clear it for a s-300). Was good fun, and pretty easy to make using triggers. Edit: I meant civilian/military not friendly/foe. Basically mixing bombers and airliners

Well if they do I really hope it will be two separate modules. And the milk in that vid could do with some weathering. Any release date announced yet?

Well it wasn't used then as it is planned for the F-35, what I mean is that the Harriers operated from an aircraft carrier, not from the mainland or assault ships. As I understand it the VStol requirement was slapped on the project by the Marines, who presumably want to operate the F-35 from their Helo boats/advanced bases instead of aircraft carriers. I don't really see what you would lose by adding arresting wires to the Queen Elizabeth, or flying Marine F-35s from Navy carriers.

Unfortunately I can't really help you since I don't know anyone in the domain, but I am sincerely curious, is the idea to try to detect waves bounced off by the stealth plane at wavelengths way shorter than the plane scale, or to have an dispersed array of metric radars and try to rebuild an accurate picture using scattered fields?

You are right, I meant astronomical in comparison to other state and even other military costs, making a gen. 5 fighter costs a lot of money. That being said, and avoiding the Stealth and gen4.5 v. gen5 debate, I think the F-35 could have been significantly cheaper if they had scrapped the vertical take-off requirement. I personally think vertical takeoff is a useless gimmick, and it can be mostly replaced by the requirement of short takeoff on ill-prepared runways (like the Swedish and Russians do). Although I will gladly admit the concept is cool.

Well part of the hate is understandable, it does cost an Astronomical sum of money at a time when countries don't exactly bathe in cash. I don't want to derail this thread into politics, I am just arguing it is fair to hold the F-35 to a high standard when you are buying them for ~150mil $ a pop, plus I think it will effectively cost the taxpayer more.

If I remember well another way to damage the plane is low rpm high manifold, although this does not kill the engine per se. As stated above full power low airspeed after takeoff does kill the engine in under 5' IIRC. Flying on a server changes the settings only if the hosted mission forces said setting, which is not automatic.

Ouch I did not realize the thread was from 2013 :doh:. I guess that is what happens when I forget the thread is a search result. In any case I get 25 fps out of my HD4000 on low settings (tf51 training mission), so yes it runs but not much more than that.

Sorry my bad I don't know where I got the idea, I was under the (wrong) impression that they did the AFM and would eventually do a full blown ASM to go with it. Edit: Actually, SD'd unofficial roadmap states it: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1931682&postcount=3 So I wasn't 100% wrong

And we will be busy and entertained for a good bit after the Hornet comes out (it might be a while before I master the bad-weather night trap:joystick:). Plus BST is releasing the F15 if I'm not mistaken. It would actually make sense to make the 16 a bit later, bunch-releasing the F-15/16/18 might be less business-efficient and would make most of us homeless (I mean with the three modules out who needs an actual life :D). Don't get me wrong I would love the viper (she is the sexiest USAF fighter after all), but why not have some russian action in between (Su27/33, MiG29,31)?

Well DCS does run on a 5 year old 15" macbook pro with absolutely no overheating issues whatsoever, but that one had a dedicated graphics GPU (NV GT600ish IIRC, at least a GB of vram). I'm also about to try on my MacbookPro, but it has a gig of Vram, 8 of ram, even though it still is HD 4000. I'm doing it more for s** and giggles, I plan on buying a tower in the near future. BTW its funny how MacBook Pro's invite an almost religious debate between people who love it and people who loathe it. I'm in the middle, sure it costs a bit (20% ish) more, but it is beautifully built, and I've never seen a more practical trackpad on a cheaper laptop. So it's down to taste really.

I'm not sure the F18 excludes the F16, on the contrary I would assume that making the second one would be much less effort.

The whole thing is eerily similar to the F-111 program: an intended one-size-fits all program that ends up not being especially good at anything and super expensive. I think that the premise of the F-35 is just wrong, at one point trying to fit a bunch of different roles and constraints on a single airframe costs more and delivers a worse product than producing 2-3 different airframes. A vertical-takeoff CAS plane just isn't compatible with a supersonic stealth sead/dead platform, and making them so costs a whole bunch of $$$.

I think the point here is that if there is a 5-7 year gap between the airframes and the JSF will cost a lot per flight hour (so training will be expensive), CAS know-how might well get lost. There were some good articles in war is boring (I know some people hate that source around here, I find it great), one of which detailed how an old-school habit of hogs pilot to write down coordinates on a piece of paper saved a B-1 from dropping a JDAM on friendlies. The other point which is valid IMHO is that a lot of the value of the hog is that pilots spend 90% of the time training for CAS, compared to multirole fighters who will spend much less time for that specific task. This creates a group of highly effective expert CAS pilots with the appropriate know-how, which again might very well disappear. Also, as for contested airspace, the next US conflict will be either a nuclear armaggedon or an Iraq/A-stan style conflict imho.

I'm sure there is, just in my opinion the process of map-making is much more automation-friendly, and imho an imperfect map (not very accurate, little 3d objects, towns are all the same, simplistic airbases with no paths for AI) is much more fun and has much more entertainment value than an imperfect module. I remember having a huge blast in fsx by building improbable airports in the middle of alpine valleys, and the idea of being able to do similar things in DCS somehow has me excited.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and slightly off-topic here, but what might be more feasible for a one-man or smaller team than a full-blown asm/efm module is a map. I mean first the size is variable, the amount of 3d modelling involved seems much more doable (still a lot of work though), and one could even imagine a completely fictitious theater which could still be fun. I really hope the map sdk becomes open, and that it will be reasonably easy for a non-official 3rd party to make a map available for integration into DCS. This could add a lot of entertainment value to the sim, again imho. Of course this is much less glamorous than developing an F16.

This. I do not think it is realistic for a one-man team to make a full-blown DCS module in a reasonable amount of time. But I would be of course very happy were you to prove me wrong.

I used to use crazy user defined curves on my logitech attack 3 to overcome the abyssimal precision it had. This was the only way I could hover the huey or refuel the 15/a10. It is a trade-off: the stick becomes much more precise near the centered position, but imprecise far from it. So high-g/high-alpha flying becomes really uncomfortable, and you need to trim a lot. Now I use my home-built hall sensor stick and I didn't touch curves at all anymore. Edit: attached typical curve I used on the logitech

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it still responded a bit, just not enough to pull up in time. I had one of the two surfaces blown off if I recall correctly. The point is this does not happen vs. AI because the AI always aims straight for the center of the plane I guess.

I lost elevator authority in a dogfight recently, which made me promptly invest in real estate not long thereafter, more specifically I bought the farm. Edit: Was flying the Dora

You're right the duct tape is temporary, but I was thinking more along the lines of epoxy (maybe combined with textile) than screws, but both are good solutions IMHO. Screws are naturally more elegant. Right again, but now my wood bearings work fine (if it ain't broke don't fix it), but I just might buy some do if I ever build a second version. Good idea thanks, I hadn't thought of it:thumbup:.