OxideMako

Awesome news LevelPulse! Might make us forget about the sock. :thumbup:

Right, it was the weird Maverick display the Viggen used. Either way the better FLIR will impact the use of the Mavericks. If anyone from Belsimtek is in here, can we get an idea of what work remains to be done on the F-5E?

Likely more than six months out. Viggen was heavily implied to be out at the end of last year, and I would assume LNS is working on that. Combine that with a hectic year of releases coming up (F-5E, SA342, AJS-37, L-39ZA all coming out in the next 6 months) that the Corsair may not be the highest priority right now.

AKA thermal Nah, it does mean they will fix the TGP on the A-10. I would assume the fact the F/A-18 (Maybe the Viggen too?) has a TGP is a factor here.

Seconded. B1-B, B-52, TU22, SU24 etc would be great. We need a bomber.

That looks stunning! Where are those shots from?

Great work!

Didn't see the harm in leaving them there, filesize was tiny anyway. But updated it :)

Here is a pack of both tweaks in one. [M2KC] Radar Display + HUD Fixes.zip

Are you guys trying to pull through the "elastic stop" system? or just pulling the stick back? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2599460&postcount=121 Also patch is only implemented in 2.0 ATM

This is really key. They seem to be working at a great pace to fix bugs and prepare for future feature additions. Definitely keep it up RAZBAM!

I hope that includes Laughlin International. Would be perfect for some longer flights, and allow the use of literally all of the high detail map portion IMO.

Yeah most likely.

Unless the drag of a MiG-21 is significantly higher than a Mirage, yes. Thrust/Weight ratio is quite important for acceleration.

Awesome! Good to finally have these :)

I used to get them confused too, until a mission where I got to the tanker and realized I was in a 27 with 200kg of fuel....:doh:

SU-27 cannot, nor can the 29. F-15, A-10A/C, SU-33 and M-2000 can all do A-A refueling.

I am sure we wouldn't want it any other way!:D

The AIM-7/search radar combo would give the F-4 a almost insurmountable advantage in anything but the merge IMO. The F-5 will prove very tough for a MiG-21 as the F-5 radar is almost a full generation ahead, and has much better avionics/gunsight. (We are getting the superior AN/APQ-159 rather than the 153) The F-5 is better in all flight regimes bar speed, and should pick up the 21 before the 21 can pick up the F-5. Furthermore the AIM-9 outranges all the 21's missiles, even the R3R. If we get the AIM-9P4/5 the F-5 can then shoot head on as well. Jumping an F-5 would then be the only way to consistently get a kill against an equally skilled pilot. Of course, this assumes no CGI/AWACS on both sides. 21's with that kind of support vs standalone F-5s would be much more interesting.(IMO)

IIRC they are supposed to be much worse than they are currently. They are FAR too effective against maneuvering targets. (They are basically a GAR-8 with a radar seeker) Instead they perform like much more modern missiles, albeit with a shorter range. Although missile performance is a highly controversial topic around here, pretty much everything except the AIM-9M is seriously under or over performing is some respects. Hopefully LNS take a look at the R3R when the F5E comes out. No real reason to fix something when compared to AIM-120s the MiGs missiles are all terrible. Finally having a historical opponent should make it more of a priority.

I found the WW2 fighters much easier to handle vs 1.2.16, but as far as I could tell this is a result of the much higher framerate of 1.5. Less input delay = less overcompensation = better control. (60 fps = 16.7ms between frames while 120fps = 8.3ms) I have not noticed any flight model change on my end. I use the exact same technique, manifold pressure, RPM and trim for takeoff as I always have done. It just feels so much smoother, and therefore more natural.

It's in there, it works with AI wingmen/AWACS/GCI. But IIRC it has real issues in multi, and most servers don't put the SU-27s in 4-ship groups to use it. I don't think it is usually deliberate, (looking at you 104th) as most servers don't put landing waypoints for the M-2000C ILS either. You can tell if the mission's designer doesn't fly or own certain modules/planes. Also, during Blue Flag, my Wingman fired an ET while I fired an ER. I was taken out and he had then switched to radar and was credited with a kill by an R-27ER (he had not yet fired his). So it was either a bug or some form of what happened to the OP. Not seen it happen since though, but I have not really played around with it.

You will get banned for using twin launchers in place of the 1x Magic. You will not get banned for using only 1 AIM-9 per Magic pylon in place of the hilariously broken Magic until they fix it. At least on the 104th/TAW servers. I don't think the Mirage v MiGs server allows the AIM-9 in any from, as the MiGs have a hard enough time as it is. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2632806&postcount=36 On topic - RAZBAM should rule out the ARMAT unless they can find evidence proving it was possible to use it on the 2000C RDI S5, even if not used operationally. If they do, go ahead and add it. I don't think people can object to that.

So you are one of those guys who doesn't respond to raygun calls online.:lol: I did not like the new chat at first, but now I think it only needs minor improvements. (font, colour etc) The ability to choose placement is very handy, and you can hit TAB to cycle between display modes.

Note - This is NOT my work. Looks bloody awesome though. Based on a Tornado livery.