Fer_Fer

Its confirmed they will give the Mig 29 a new FM after the Su 33. once its updated, it will be released as its own, standalone module

Cut of Valve on software distributed through Steam is IIRC 30%

Looks very nice, Any idea when the update hits?

IMHO it depends on what you want in a module. The Mirage is a interceptor/fighter. While the L39 is a Trainer/light attacker, and both have their own merits. Currently the Mirage is still not feature complete, and a few weapons are missing along with IFF and advanced radar. However its usable in its current state, but heavily relies on support because of this. Overall, even if you don't speak a word of french, its very easy to understand and fly. I have had it since day one, and i did not regret buying it for a single moment.

the person that i know that Fly the G is somebody whose parent flew Mig 29's in the DDR. that being said, is there even a FM difference between the 2? the A and G IIRC have a bit less fuel and less weight due to the absence of ECM right?

RIP, a shame.

Range is significantly better, got a kill at 11NM at 15.000ft.

I thought the Aeronavale used the F-8 looking forward to it though

I don''t think its needed, just release a high quality FC 3 Mig and sell it for cheap that will do nicely. Also IIRC the only difference between the Mig 29G and A is that in the G its a German lady screaming at you to pull up

my educated guess is that they got hit by a Cease and Desist notice from Boeing, especially since it was intended as payware. happened to quite a few modules in the past as well.

well their website is offline as well. So i am guessing its something more then just on hold...

also, i'd like to see a Su-22M4

hello everybody, Does anybody have a INS tutorial? I have trouble figuring out how to use it, especially with putting in waypoints.. thank you very much

Didn't Coretex have a Superbug on the line? last time i checked that was halted due to legal issues (guessing Boeing here)

to be honest, i'd prefer it if they filled out the current nations properly first, since a lot of them are missing equipment and proper skins. other than that, i support it.

thank you for the skin \o\

Page 1 of your Readers guide, On the Bloc 2B commentary is factually wrong, and proves that the person writing it has poor reading comprehension. No, failure to read, what the report says, several lines below meaning as my english allows it interpret it Certain features and weapon integration have been moved from the 2B test schedule to later blocs, the capability is not on the bloc 2B F-35's, while the original testing schedule calls for integration and or testing of these capabilities. logical conclusion, schedules will become tighter due to higher workload. Apparently irrelevant in the "readers" guide. To me it seems more like an explanation why Bloc 3i is 8 months behind schedule..... also apparently irrelevant. To me it sounds like the USAF tells Lockheed that they will not take a bloc that is not up to spec. Notable event, should be in a report. Readers guide proceeds to complain about these. To anybody with common sense it seems they took the middle of the road. No massive successes or huge delays. hence, assumptions, especially for a project this complex, erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing. especially if the newly tested software is completely new or significantly more complicated than previous iterations of the same code. apparently assuming not optimistically is a sin now, to me it seems the kind of prediction a half solid bookkeeper would do, which is to assume a middle of the road approach. and it keeps on going like this, from top to bottom, its nothing but self centered, baby esque crying that evil outsiders are out to gut F-16.net precious little baby...... Its simply not true. as for slanted, you are referring to the bloc buy. it merely presents the argument that is being made for it, and proceeds to point out that its not in line with previous DoD procurement of Fly before you buy. it does not, anywhere advocate the buy or argues against it. it goes to lengths to point out there is opposition to the buy, but the report in itself doesn't recommend anything of the sorts. again, this is an annual report, and Lockheed's suggestion for a block buy is a significant event within said fiscal year. so i fail to see how its slanted while for the most part, DOTE, does what they are supposed to do, which is to bring out objective information to the public. to me, Slanted seems more akin to people getting salty of being told things they don't want to hear them malicious intend on part of the DOTE.

i have seen it pop up before and its a highly subjective annotation, which is more aimed to discredit the findings rather then offering any real explanation, rather then a objective one. So if anything, looks to me more like somebody trying to safe face then actually trying to make people understand what is written... and i'll bet you an arm and a leg that the first concept version is a lot more harsh then the final report.

i know there is a 2 GB size limit. or just upload em to userfiles?

well, there is dropbox, which works nicely for this kind of stuff.

since when is the annual DoD report to congress considered Dodgy? its source is the same document i linked a few replies back

ohhh that green camo is very nice, you happen to have a link to it?

DTOE Report over Fiscal year 2015 http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/

I did not know that, thank you :)

How about a Kfir?