Force_Feedback

My favorite Russian plane besides the Su-27KUB and Su-32, thank you very much :) This bird has great AoA handling capabilities, and although it has slightly weaker engines than the M-346, it looks cooler due to the Mig-29-esque intakes.

Seen it too, well, all I can say that it's almost such crap as Les Chevailliers du ciel, aka void of a story, Steven Segall style. Only difference is that they did not speed up the air footage, which is a big plus as it looks less gay that way. The Su-35UB was awesome, and the ejection in that movie, and the flying scene without canopy and no rear seat was REAL footage as well, no CGI. That is the most awesome thing in that movie, a real ejection seat firing (stationary, but made to look like in flight) and convertible flying action, which is badass as hell, considering that the Su-35UB is a test bed for avionics (means that they can stand the outside air :P).

Only if 2 engines fail, but that is impossible, will never happen /sarcasm Seriousely, it's a nice idea, but until everybody gets a personal escape system (read: ejection seat) it kind of is a deathtrap. They *could* fit those SKS-94-2 lightweight extraction seats (made for aerobatic planes), but they weigh 18 kg at the very least, and that will cut down the ammount of troops, guns and other cargo. And there is the problem of added weight for jettisonable hatches and those two big deadly thingies which keep it from crashing in the first place. A cargo pod system would be cool, but then again, the servicing of a ejectionable cargo container and the weight outweighs the human lives lost (you CAN put a price on a life). Oh, don't start with the crash absorbtion rants, that is really pathetic, I mean, how often will it make a hard landing on a perfectly flat surface, when the wheels contact first, and everything is like from a highschool physics book? Never, hence my rant about the usefulness of a rocket extraction seat (Ka-50-esque) for all attack helicopters, basically everything that can lose rotors due to battle damage. But... the current trend is to glorify the crash mitigation systems and how they can REDUCE the damage to the occupants in a 50 km/h crash, wowee, cars already do it at 64 (okay, the vector is different, but you get the point). And seriousely, if a chopper is battle damaged, and is spiralling down from high altitude (1km or so), you better wear a parachute, and since all American made choppers don't allow for crew parachutes, well, more heaps of spare ribs and other fleshy parts in a crater. The Soviets actually saved helicopter crews' lives (Mi-24 and Mi-8) in Afghanistan, sure, not all bailouts were succesful (low altitude), but it's better than dying anyway. Argh, the V-22 gives me headaches from a safety perspective. But, if I ever get the chance to hitch a ride in one, I will be like ---This--- happy :) Really a nice contraption, they finally made a viable tilt rotor, the question remains wether it really is as good as it was on paper.

:) I just don't feel comfortable ruining 10 minutes of somebody's life who was trying his/her best to do a sneaky spproach to kill some tanks. Hence my no online flying. Besides, I'm more the crash landing person, nothing more statisfying than landing a Su-25T (Su-25A is bugged, and will always explode after a minute, ED, FIX IT) with half or both wings missing :) I love Strela-1s, they have this friendly warhead that won't detonate your whole plane on impact. ECM is straightforward, but, seeing from the posts here, some people feel comfortable flying with the IR lamp on the whole time, well, you can as long as your butt if facing away from Su-27s/Mig-29s.

Shazzam! (2 much Dave Chappelle) http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Force_Feedback/485/ BTW, I've heard some newer and bigger helicopters have an 'active vibration mitigation system', how does it work, is it with like antiphase vibrations to cancel them out?

Yes, please turn on your Jammers, I remember how great that was, knowing the route of enemy Su-25Ts, popping up from a ridge, let the EOS give me a nice blip, lock it, and, now comes the best part, I could chose wether to use the R-27ET, R-77, R-73, or the 46kg light Gsh-301 30mm fungun ;) So yes, turn your IR jammers on. P.S. I don't fly online no more, but don't bitch if you get an ET up your tailpipes.

As long as we 'can' carry them A-A missiles too on the Ka-50, be it the R-77, R550 or Aim-9L ;)

Heck, that's what I tried to say like 10 times, but they're too smug to admit it. Just say 'Yes, we don't have enough info on the R-73/IglaV, so it won't be in Black Shark' See, it's not that hard to do, right?

The Kh-29T/L were made as demolitions charges against buildings and ships, locking a tank with such devices would be an overkill and waste of money in real life. That's why it (29T) lacks a moving target capability. Besides, with those big control surfaces it would bleed off speed in no time had it to track a moving target. A 320 kg warhead is too much for puny vehicles ;)

Maybe New Year? These acronyms annoy me, English doesn't have long words, like for example German, so drop all those P.I.M.P. F.A.G B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. BS and others, its only confusing and saves often no more than 2-3 letters. Oh, the poster is awesome, too bad I already have this great metal poster and the lack of insanity to pay for posters (printing costs), oh, those things only gather dust, so why bother.

Same here, though an updated Su-25A external model and extinguishable engine fires on the same plane would be really awesome. I love making emergency landings with the Su-25T, but the Su-25A is more agile, hence my request to ED to correct the engine fire bug (engine fire=explosion, even when fuel is cut off) for 1.13 or whatever patch there may be.

Maybe you're not allowed to use hotmail/yahoo/gmail accounts, as they can be faked easily. Btw, how do I get the Su-25TM mod to work? And is it really the -TM, because if it's like the UTG mod, then don't bother explaining how to get it to work.

Let's see, the 2A42 produces what, 6000kg of recoil? Multiply that by 2 and you'll get the reason why it vibrates.

Time is critical with G loads, and we are talking miliseconds, not seconds here. It's wrong to say how many Gs a person experienced as a constant decelleration is impossible to achieve in practice. That's why there should be a graph for all of us to see how those 179.8 Gs accumulated, and ofcourse in how much time, otherwise it's pointless throwing around G values in here.

I mean hacking a flightsim community/squad/whatever is just like hacking a charity or some site on rare beer mugs, or something as nerdy as that. I mean come on, if you hack something, do it right, hack Greenpeace, WNF and all those money mongers, better yet, steal money from those charlatans. Or hack cnn.com, or hack some local newspaper or governmental site, but hacking a flightsim squad page is just pathetic. You can do better than that.

The su-30 is the only one that comes close, engine performance wise. And didn't the fuel fraction decide how well it would handle, so you could meint a su-27 and set a MTOW of 300000 and if you adjust the fuel reserves accordingly to let's say 94000 kg, then you'll get the same performance as the vanilla su-27. Don't know if this is true, I did some testing a while ago just to make the b-52 less of a pig, forgot about the outcome though. If you like, you an do some testing, see which values work best, just keep in mind that setting max fuel to 100kg won't do you any good (with unl fuel on). Argh, I give up, there was some kind of 'trick' to make the B-52/C-17/otherheavies have reasonable performance, but it's not setting max weight to something low and not setting max fuel to a ridiculously low value.

The Birthday of the Virtual Ukrainian Falcons, they ARE doing a demo together with the White Ravens. С днём рождения, Украинские соколы!!! (happy birthday Ukrainian Falcons) Those screens look fantastic, damn, don't have lomac on this rig :(

Thanks, but I don't do online flying no more. I was talking about single player, though I admit I only tried it not more than 5 times, but with no avail. Maybe it's because i didn't let the Vinnie move (S=0)?

Anybody had succes in launching from cat 4, as mentioned in an earlier thread? I tried it a couple of times, nothing happened. Does this really work in single player, or was it just some lag spike in multiplayer?

All air launched missiles have a minimum launch speed, and if a UCAV without an afterburner can launch the Kh-31, then the Su-25TM can also, that big ass rocket booster in the back is not for nothing after all. AFAIK you can select the ordnance you want to jettison, and also you can jettison the pylon seperately (that big draggy thing that always remains glued to your plane in lomac), but all this on the real deal, so a big no-no in lomac, just like slightly uprated engines on the Su-25T.

Thank you for keeping us informed :)

Shouldn't it be like, lower? Happy holidays

That artwork is just badass, will we have that in BS when we set the date to 31 december? :P Happy holidays everybody.

Yeah, mine hasn't checked for a disk in like years, pretty awesome eh?

When will it be drivable?