Force_Feedback

article? man, that's sad, probably some software bug that got it?

The big question now is wether your pee would fall down, continue to fly horizontally, or stain the tail. Hmmmm, there is need for more research to give us the most realistic virtual urinating experience.

There will be a Black Shark 2, a Black Shark Reloaded and a Black Shark 4.0: Shark Blacker. After that the franchise will get unpopular and ED will be forced to change the rating to R, and come up with titles like: Black Shark's first time 25, My, oh my, what a long, big, hard, Black Shark nr 69, and ofcourse the bestseller of this deprived series: Black Sharks shooting stuff at moms 8

I'll post later on the real flare timings of the su-27SK, or somebody can do that for me. It has 3 or 4 sequences, would be nice to convert them to macros so we can have more realistic macro experience, contrary to those ECM blinking people.

What about a two mode rocket for the R-27E®(T)(P)?

You need radar for IFF, EOS is passive.

The lack of moving parts, tail fins are all wrong, you see 4 screws on the mountings with a real R-73. This is a real, wooden, R-73, I name it the R-73w00t

http://www.irkut.com/en/gallery/video/su30kn/

At what speed do you think that 'shockwave' (where is it coming from, not the wing fences themself, that's for sure) will be coming from? The actuators can't even turn those things to the angles of attack you propose, it's not some Python 5, the actuators just cant turn those things that far at maximum speeds. In that live fire video you can see the missile pitch up, but not with ridiculus turn rates. Yes, that's the yellowish radome, same color for the R-77

the G limits mentioned are for the TARGET, you know that, don't turn this into a 'What you said makes no sense' kind of agrument. The G-limit for the missile itself is like 4 times higher. But if some pesky F-16 is violating your soveign airspace, and it knows a R-27 is coming, it does some kind of last minute 9G maneuver, well, no lock with that one. The R-77 can deal with 12G targets, partiallty due to its control surfaces, which are NOT draggy as some 'experts' suggest on the Internet. I've touched the control surfaces of a dismantled R-27R (not a mock-up, but a real missile sans pyrotechnics), and its canards are quite sharp and sleek. Now the cheese graters on the R-77 are razor thin, yes, 2mm at most, probably 1mm or less across. So the surface drag might smaller than on the R-27, making it keep its kinetic energy better. This may very well be the case why the R-77 is better, range wise. The R-27EA was meant as a stop gap before the R-77, since nobody bought the seeker, well, it's not in service, so ED won't add it. Hadjuk, real missiles have a yellowish radome, clearly visible black proximity fuses and sleek control surfaces which don't have rivets, so find us a photo of a R-27EA with a yellow -ish radome, and proximity fuses, then everybody will agree that this missile is is service somewhere. 95% of the R-77 photos are mock-ups as well, so that makes this missile non-existant? no you just have to find photos of an in-service, live missile. And then we return to the old dilemma, unlike the US and various NATO planes that fly with live ordnance once in a while (terrorism paranoia) Russian VVS/PVO planes fly with mock-ups most of the time, as there is no need to endanger the crew for some far-fetched occasion that some, preferably Islamist terrorist is going to do a 911 Part Deux :P. I wish you all the best with your search, but I don't think you'll find those photos. Hell, finding photos of ordinary, live R-27s is hard.

External fuel tanks are operational, there are walkaround photos showing those things on the ka-50, even with lateral shock absorbers. The Kh-25 is only 'operationally' used on the Ka-52, which is quite unique by itself, considering the number in service ;) So is the R-73 --> ka-52. There is a photo of a ka-50 mock-up with a K-73, R-60, Igla-Vx2 and kh-25ML in front of it.

Gosh, don't spoil it, I like the wait and uncertainty, makes things more interesting.

FO, that is like the one with the promises and $15 coffee cups? Man, FO is like Duke Nukem 4, you see screens of it, yet it will never be released. Now with BS we don't see squat for a long time, then comes a movie, everybody crawls from underneath their stones and starts saying how awesome BS is. This is getting old, we need something better, like more of those tech demo vids.

What about making a sticky dedicated to fps inprovement, and we all post the twaks that work best with our system. So, you post the code to put in graphics.cfg and then your system specs, limited to CPU, mobo, video card and amount of memory. I haven't done any tweaking or playing, but I'm about to try hosting on a Turion 3100+ single core lappy with 850 ram and a 32mb video card, hmmm, how it'll work.

I don't think he is a slutty, ugly cokehead that made his fame by showing his genitalia on the internet? Look up Tommy Chong's opinion on the Paris Hilton media commotion, he has a very valid point, and no Paris Hilton herself (almost typed itself) plays no role at all in his explanation. Youtube those videos. This man deserves the attention, although you may question the real world value of record flights.

Some rumor spread on the net included something about 'the extraction rocket being algled in order to clip any unseperated blades so the cable could grab the blade and thus pull out the pilot' A little rationale will tell you two things: 1; there are no provision for complete jettisoning of the whole upper part of the cockpit section. 2; what are the chances of that motor+wire actually getting entangled with a rotor? So, should this 'feature' work, our onfortunate pilot would be grated and sliced by either sides of the upper part of the canopy structure. Good thinking avsimpublishing.uk or something guys :/ So, you rather autorotate with a damaged and burning engine (potential explosion, not a hollywood one, but one that makes the pilot go all *splat*) into a mountain than riding the silk? Those systems are not just placed for peacetime incidents, just like normal ejection seats. If fighters were not intended to fly in a war they would have no ejection seats either in the first place. Surely the addition of ejection systems is positive in peacetime incidents, but it was not the intention of the whole concept. AFAIK the sequence in the lomac betas is rudimental at the very most, no, no spoilers about how it is now, I want to be disappointed after I have the game, not before.

Now that will spoil your days of IED-ing Humvees and bad cameramanship.

No, you should, even though it hogs 15gb for the vanilla install, it's nice, but only with SP1. Just don't fall too easily for them add on 'salesmen'.

Man, FS and all the 'professional packages' for $60 scams really got me angry, they deliver like, at best an early alpha with a science fiction flight model they thought up while having a night out or something. And people still keep buying those expensive fsuipcs and all other crap to clog up your install. FSX has the worst payware expansions thus far, the vanilla planes handle more realistic than all those 'unique FMs'. So, when will we be asked by Nigerian businessmen to use our account for FSX add-on making. I've seen more quality in freeware models than in all those Alphasims, Wilco's and Captainsims (and Alpha sim are the most horrendous scammers). Not finishing a product is one thing, asking lots of money for it from people that love simming is plainly wrong, wrong as in selling organs from living being wrong. I can't believe no legal action has been taken thus far against all those so called 'publishers'. Wonder how much this su-37 is supposed to cost, $40? For example, the vanilla A-320 has a simulated flight control computer that limits your fighter jet behavior, yet, all the so-called pros don't have it. And they say Microsoft sucks... :\

That's a Mig-AT, it has two engines, and is not related to the L-39 at all, apart from being a combat trainer, which performs worse than the Yak-130.

Yes, the R-27 missile has a modular design, so it is possible to swap the guidance and seeker sections. But the ET is limited by the IR seeker range, and that is no more than 45km in the rear hemisphere, front may be as low as 15. But the T version has a more flat frontal area, that may decrease the range by a percentage.

Are there any external differences between the ER and EM? I thought the latter just had a better seeker.

Real F-16s do crazy flips too when they stall, all that in 0.00003 seconds, that's what Lockheed Martin tells us... Oh, they also say the F-22 is cheap, the F-35 is NOT downgraded and the Hercules sales scams back in the eighties were just coincidence.

That is probably true too :/

Shall we start again on the differences between mock-ups, rocket motor test models (engine test), and low quality wooden mock-ups?