Ce_Zeta

Amazing! Keep up the good work!

I fully agree with Pepin. This module is a nonsense until we remember what's happen.... If they developed a Fishbed, they should learn all about it! Tactics, systems, doctrines, history, operational use...And of course is easy develop a credible campaign where the fishbeds are used with the proper tactics, enemies and support (A E2D??? What a joke!). Farlander, I love the Flogger too, but I want a good Flogger module!! So My hopes for a BST MiG-23. It's a simulator, not a game.

Ok. Thanks for the info. The C-101 is a truly piece of art! We wanna paint this incredible "canvas".

I was unable to find the template, it was uploaded?

Thank you Aviodev.

Oh sad news about Nevada. Well, more unrealistic is operate an aircraft if you can't contact with him. We suppose that India's MATC (for example) is able to contact with his Fishbeds.

Well Andrei, the question is in which date we are flying. If we fly a mission in the eighties...Almost all airfields have a RSBN beacon (but only military airfields had PRMG I think). If we fly after 1991, the situation changes a bit. Before 2000 georgian airfields haven't RSBN stations, yeah, but it's not completely unrealistic. Also we should put our attention in the airfields, some airfields closed (Novorosiisk airfield was dismantled for example) othe is missing (Marneuli)... It still have ARK navigation that is very common in Russia (You can check the Supronov's Yak-40). But there's no problem. With other maps like Nevada, I hope that ED can implement fixed RSBN Stations in order to use the advanced capabilties of the RSBN navigation meanwhile we can't add mobile beacons in the ME. The point here is what Tarres said. ATM there's not a correct implementation of the RSBN/PRMG system in the Fishbed.:(

Yeeeah. From the V1.5 Changelog:

Yeap. Wags posted the V1.5 changelog here.

Thank you very much for the info JO and for respect the freedom of speech. This subforum is a virtual West Berlin. :thumbup: It's very sad to see how many problems have DCSW as a hardcore sim platform. Good Luck!

Radio and RSBN will be fixed?

1 - C 2 - B 3 - A 4 - A

Yeahh, I am glad to see that they took decisions in order to avoid the disaster.:thumbup:

Wow great schemes. The culopo looks amazing! Althorugh one of the schemes looks similar to the legendary lizard scheme of the Manchegos (F-1CE)...Do you have any plan to paint the CC with a lizard scheme?

:huh: Buff looks like a dead-end. :( 'cause a huge delay will be a disaster.:cry:

Nice level of detail. The hip finally has the love which it deserves. Now the question is. When will be released the next patch?

For a probie....The best choice is the F-15.

You understand nothing :( 'cause you are doing nothing to understand it. :joystick: The typical choice, knowledge without effort :megalol::smartass: You cannot assume that "technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent" means that the designers take the same path to solve the same problem. Sometimes is truth, yeah , but here, we are talking about very complex problems. As I wrote, the designers can take different ways (shape of the liner, material of the liner, detonation of the explosives...). So, we can assume that "Technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent" means that similar penetration values for the same conditions, have a high probability. But Without enough data, we are only assuming that. And of couse, the flight profile of the Hellfire is an advantage over the Vikhr. You are using again a rule of thumb and using it in a bad way. And that's happens when the people don't understand complex things. They are happy because they think that they can deal with these complex problems with rules of thumbs.:megalol:. This give you a false sense of knowledge and, a false sense of safety. And then accidents happen. You should take the risk and try to understand the real problem, drop the rule of thumb and understand how works the real thing. Only, when you understand how works a HEAT warhead, you can apply the rule of thumbs with guarantees, 'cause then, you will have a strong criterion based in knowledge. It's the hardest path, but Bro, is the best path, I can assure you that.:book::smartass::thumbup: You, as a designer, don't want a wider jet. Because a wider jet implies less penetration. We are diverting energy from the main objective, penetrate the armour plate. And the hypothetical benefit is very marginal. The spalls with the high velocity are in a ballistic trayectory and is the shock wave which really works fine, and isn't a variable of the hole diameter).

Yeah thank you. This module will be the best!

Yeah, Thanks for your answer. Yesterday, I didn't refute your point. Nopes. I wanted to know how you find your conclusions, what's the ideas behind your opinion. Sorry for the mockery, but I hate when people use rules of thumb in a bad way. Rules of thumb are very dangerous. Often, people forget that the rules of thumb are good when you know how to use it in a good manner, for our stuff. But always it's a bad idea extrapolate our rules of thumb to another technology. It's a common mistake. Why it's a mistake? Well, When you are using a rule of thumb, you are assuming some facts, simplifying a complex problem in order to reduce the parameters involved...So with the rule of thumb a very complex problem like this, can be reduced to 1 parameter, the diameter of the warhead. The rule of thumb works when the problem was approached with the same strategy. It's a disaster when the designer attack the problem with another strategy, then, the rule of thumb don't work.:doh: It's a big problem when you committed this mistake 'cause you lost the focus on the real parameters, "master parameters" ( it works always). The link between diameter of the warhead and the penetration of the warhead is only a local parameter (works only, when many assuptions are true). Nopes. The armour penetration is driven by the kinetic energy of the jet and the properties of the liner to keep the mass working as a fluid (due to the high velocity and pressure gradient). The relation between the diameter of the warhead and the diameter of the jet is also inconsistent. Many many assupmtions are done here. Diameter of the warhead=diameter of the shaped cone first of all, but the important fact is the shape of the plume. The shape of the plume is formed by the energy released by the explosives. And, a wider jet means more contact area, less speed and less temperature in these areas. It's not good for penetrate an armour. It's better make a long jet because with a longer jet you can penetrate more thickness (with the same speed at the tip of the jet and same liner material, the longer jet, the better). The hellfire can have a longer jet? or maybe the Vikhr? I don't know, but the diameter of the warhead is not a evidence in one or another way. The important thing, missing in your post is the energy. All is driven by the energy. That's the problem of work with rule of thumbs. You lost the focus on the important parameters. American and Russian designers can be walked different ways, always focused in optimize the release of energy to the liner. They can use different explosives, different liner materials and shapes... Ta is used since the 70s in warheads. And Yeah, this one master parameter. The density, thermal properties and mechanical properties are a key in the formation of the plume jet. But, seriously dude, Russians aren't stoopid, they used other liners. I mean, in 40 years I am sure that some of the Russian designers started a research to use other materials as a liners., sure.

That's an obvious question! Everybody knows that the best aircraft is the MiG-29. ;)

:megalol: Can you explain your affirmation? after-armor effects are a consecuence of the diameter of the warhead? :doh::pilotfly:

We are following the FC3 update for the best fighter of the sim in this topic: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139561

Great!!!

I hope that before, 'cause the Hornet will be released in a few years! :music_whistling: This arcraft have tons of public information. So...My bet is that ED is developing a Hardcore module to be released a few months before the Hornet.