Vati

Anyone questioning either to update flight model or not, simply shows how little he knows about flying. It's like the fsim poll I saw not long ago which asked: "what's the most enjoying for you as a pilot: a) take-off, b) landing, c) taxiing, d) crashlanding" The most important is left out: flying. It really shows why we are where we are... thankfully some of us care and try to change this...

By reading about your priorities theGozr, I think Condor is perfect for you :)

Sure.. from Flanker 1.0 to FC 1.2, it takes in avg. more cannon ammo to shot down an a/c than to destroy a tank. Bomb's and rocket's fragments & pressure lethality zone is, despite some very small adjustments in FC, still too small.

Update to external ballistics is very nice to see... lets hope terminal will be also updated as it is catastrophic in current state.

whatever you are smoking, it is not healthy...

Before you guys go crazy over f5, please open your dictionary and read the explanation of what 'training' means.

While I would love to fly Su25T, and I am really trying to, but from the plane handling, I really question the validy of the FM. Dive acceleration is way too optimistic when you look what speed you need to stay level. It just does not make sense when you put it all together. If you want to have standard 30deg dive attack run, you must practically stall the plane and put airbrakes out, if you do not want to compress too soon. Just because it is more hard to fly, it does not mean it is more real.

Well I for one did not like the video in sanse of demonstrating the BS features, etc. I really hope that the cockpit shake when firing rockets is only post video editing and not the real deal... way too much CGI and editing present to be worth the value of product demonstration.

the funnyman did it again LOL.. you arent serious are you? You actually compare trackir to padlock? LOL.. Have you ever used trackir? If you did, can you tell me where you bought it, since mine does not lock and track automatically.

F-35 Flea

None actually, just wanted to see if there is something new in public that I might had missed. And by what you had written, I guess nothing new is out. However, I can say that word like "consistently" is a bit on the optimistic side for '91 performance. ;)

GGTharos, please state sources where it is written that Patriots hit 'consistently'.

Weta43, I have been through the same path as you are. I've tried all FFB models on the market and there is unfortunately no other FFB joystick up to the quality as the model you own.

I guess you do not know what were you writing then ;) If not that, then you do not understand what orthogonal roll is and why it works. for the rest, an A+ mark for red herring

GGTharos, actually I do, but I see no use arguing about. However just for you, the "fighter pilot's" words on the orthogonal roll at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1999/articles/oct_99/oct3a_99.html (use search function on the phrase). Tho I guess SAM missile still uses "outdated" physics so it doesnt count ;) Personally, you guys are way too much concentrated only to the bits of the bigger picture. For example your last post on doing the math. You forget to add into the account aerodynamics. Just because you can slew seeker on target doesnt mean you can follow the target.

Reaper-6, now sit back and wait for them to find 1 source out of zillion to comply w/ their POV and you shall read how they were right and you are wrong ;)

Also we should take into an account that you cannot compare 'live' with 'training' missile. Check the bands.

GGTharos, you really are a cherry. Arguing for nothing just to have the last word on the topic :) Thanks for enlighting us that if target goes out of parameters the missile will miss. We never thought about that. ;)

JJ Well, if FC is anything to be judged upon, I have my doubts that so detailed vehicles have zero impact on the performance. When it comes to flight sims, the last thing we should be concerned is if some ground vehicle or weapon looks photorealistic. Hardware wise, we are simply nowhere near to the point when we would have problem finding anything else to use cpu cycles. 99.99% of the time you will not see any of this so close to worry if all screws are in the right place on the given 3d models. Simply, a waste of resources... my .50€

Yeah... like having 3 fps on take off and landing is what I need in an unstable flying platform like helicopter. Woohoo!

Ironhand, Goon already did the explanation and Cosmonaut expand it. That's why I would say it is a feature not a bug. What's more practical to have? That's the whole different ball. However as I mentioned in my post. It is not uncommon here over the pond, to have home base in QFE. P.S. Airea, thx... I am glad to hear you are enjoying it :)

Why would this be a bug? I assume you know about QFE and QNH? Though I know that in US/Can QFE is not as much used as is in europe & russia, but that's not a reason to call it a bug. Or is it that I misunderstood your explanation.

I can confirm, that helo can indeed be observed by PD from the rotor even if it is hovering and it is not in ground clutter. While I was in army, we used to NCTRed helos easily with our radars based on the helo's rotor configuration, passing this data to AD units.

Open betas are an excuse for poor service in most cases... Google is prime example of this. I can already see some monty python way skit: "it's beta, we do not take any resposibility if it kills you"

If GGTharos would refine a bit of his writings w/ some acronyms one would be hard pressed to not think he is Kurt Plummer... ;)