zerO_crash

Bingo

The product line has to be split, which is also why ED is not making any more FC3. In essence, the low fidelity (systems) of FC3 is working against the DCS full fidelity simulation trademark. Vice versa, to customers seeking a less advanced product, searching up on DCS assures a headache. Then there are the neverending requests for aircraft/systems, which simply can not be made to DCS-standard (legal inhibit/lack of information), which MAC will be able to. The split is logical in every sense. This also points to really major differences between exactly FC3 and FF. Limitations (aircraft/component/systems/sensors/+++), operaring procedures, knowledge of what integrates with what and how it functions, complexity in setting up a mission profile and planning on what and how to deploy, and much more. Honestly, there is no comparison - these are worlds apart. The fact that we are finally getting a MiG-29 FF... It was a dream back in LOMAC-times. It took some time, but we got there. Just like with all the others modules. It'll be fantastic, there is absolutely no doubt there.

You are oversimplifying a very complex topic. By that, absolutely most of it, becomes wrong. Both RD-93 (RD-33, with gearbox placed on the bottom to fit JF-17) as well as AL-31F are great engines, there is no doubt there. They both perform incredibly well, even at very high altitudes. A comparison is, however, pointless. They are of different sizes (RD-93/33 is significantly smaller). JF-17 simply has no space whatsoever for an AL-31F, let alone the fuel for its realtively higher fuel consumption. The JF-17 doesn't need it either. Actually, it is completely wrong to claim that the aircraft "barely" reaches M 1.6. Is reaches it incredibly fast, and you have to hold the throttle back in order not to exceed design limitations and cause damage. It has a good trust-to-weight ratio, counter to what most claim. It has 1.07 in T/W empty. At combat load, it has approximately 0.85 in T/W. Compare that, to SR-71 which had 0.395 in T/W! The ability to climb high and fly fast, as can be seen above, has essentially less to do with just engines. The airfoil - the aerodynamic properties of a bulk, are far more important. JF-17 is built for M 1.6, and a certain max in altitude. That's really it. In order to completely change its valors, you need to redesign the aircraft. A pure numeric approach, doesn't get you there either (that's why any new aircraft is tested in wind tunels, and good CFD software). That is, because of different phenomenon in aerodynamics/general physics for which pure numbers don't account for. In case of JF-17, here is the extract from the guide: "Max IAS in low altitude is 1300 km/h (702 kts), but you may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, plane will have aeroelastic problem over this speed. In the game, your acceleration will be very slow when above this speed. In high altitude, plane’s max Mach number is M1.6, but you also may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, the limitation is come from plane’s stability and aerodynamic heating. Of course, we won’t let you go much faster than this." In either case (low/high), aeroelastic problem or aerodynamic heating, are complete inhibitors. Basically, this is not the tuning of a car, it's a complete redesign. Ultimately, the JF-17 is what it is, and it is a great aircraft for its purpose. You, however, are trying to change into something it isn't designed for. That will never work. The building of an aircraft, starts with a mission/concept, then taken through design phase with testing, and finally refinement, with testing. Not the ther way around. You don't understand why the plane is like it is, because you haven't read its history. I suggest you do that. The main reason why this aircraft exists (instead of picking available fighters internationally), was the notion of low cost, affordable. AL-series of engines, are anything but. A bigger airframe is anything but. A higher performing one, is even more anything but. This is supposed to be a small, nimble, multipurpose aircraft that is affordable to a poorer nation, and can perform a whole range of missions. The idea is further that with advanced weaponry, one will alleviate, what one might consider, limitations of the platform. The fact is, for any of the missions that it is built, it performs it incredibly well, and that affordably. I will leave this for you to chunk on: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/in-1985-an-sh-37-viggen-in-reconnaissance-mission-performed-aerobatic-manoeuvres-at-low-altitude-to-shake-off-two-soviet-su-15s-one-of-the-flagons-crashed/amp/ If you're claiming a aircraft/mission is bad, because you are not in a dominant platform, then you are doing it wrong.

The MiG-29As will perform the same (FC3/FF), as Chizh said on the Russian side. Everything is correct with the flight performance, and has been, since the inception of PFM for FC3 (not counting bugs). There will however be changes and refinements to the control-system, in particular the SAU-451 and the control articulator. There will be fixed some long-standing glitches/imprecisions. (Without specific implication, I assume this will be carried over to the FC3 29s (both), when it's ready). Otherwise, as you sat, it will be more realistic, for better or worse. Realism is what matters.

I see you are playing the game as well - tactics of the grand subversion. Sugarcoat the falllen until we have them in our net, then it's time for resocialization. A factory of pedants and gentlemen, all at once. My stamp is running overtime though, almost out of ink... Hahaha, good stuff! Amen to us, harbingers of truth! We do it, because no one else would

With that statement, while I didn't mention it, I wrote it in relation to my former line of arguing - focused on design in the former years (pre- and aft- of Vietnam/Afghanistan - first helicopter wars). I didn't want to expand the topic too far, unless needed (forum norm). I wasn't specific enough though - you are absolutely right and we agree on that point Pedants of the world, unite!

@Cobra847 Is there any chance, after all this time, that J-35 Draken could be re-considered in the aspect of a full module? I have to admit, depending on preference, the AJS-37 is among the sweetest pair of deltas there is. There is no doubt that it would be a success. I say, go ZON 3 on it!

Just noticed there have been more documents popping up here in the recent years! Absolutely gold! Keep it coming as much as you can. Hopefully, Heatblur will feel an inner tick of nationalism, and decide on modelling the Draken! Delta wings are the thing, they always have! Honestly, Swedish tech is just fantastic. And I am saying that as a foreign agent who travelled to the wrong side of the Scandinavian Peninsula Jättebra, takker så mycket!

Еще одна вещь - разница между тем, что говорит русское и английское руководства. Не уверен, заметили ли.

Вот лучшее видео, показывающее именно то, что я имею в виду. ИШ1-15 = 0* IAS < 300 км/ч Почему винт повреждается? На этой стадии полета он не должен разрушаться. IAS слишком высока для этой высоты - да. Но Ка-50 выдерживает как минимум 350 км/ч IAS. Анимация винта неверная, или расчеты физики неверны. Ка-50 Баг.trk

I'd like to request a "mission planner"-window, post selecting a module (offline/online) to configure all preset channels for radios/navigation that are currently only available through mission editor. An example here, would be to select Ka-50, and as the mission briefing window pops up (before entering cockpit), have an option to use the mission planner to configure the above mentioned. The option to see the map in this window would be useful in order to know what radio-navigation stations to tune the presets to. The request is s general one for all modules Thanks!

Definitely a pre-order! Interestingly enough, this will be the third and last, of the three most used helicopter configurations in the world (conventional, tandem and co-axial). Going to be even more interesting to see in VR! Fantastic! One correction: Each Honeywell T-55-GA-714A produces 4,868 shaft power - which is 9,736 shaft horsepower combined

Enjoy your day, chummer!

Read my original comment closely. You're arguing with yourself here. I am precisely making the statement, that as long as customer's interest is taken care of, everything else is obviously ED's private sphere. If there is uncertainty (based on lack of statements there is), then transparency is necessary to avoid collateral (new customers purchasing modules that "could" get abandoned). At this point, it is going in circles. Adding fuel to fire is unneeded though. I respect Ron's work, but he is not professional with his communication (terms among firms has no place in the official sphere). His posts only add to the speculative narrative, which is counterproductive. Personally, I made the point concerning our interests, and I'm leaving it here until further official notice.

Don't bother posting those. It's an inappropriate way to communiate on the issue within corporate ethics and code of conduct. While ED should be open about the current dangers of buying the Razbam product line, the specifics are strictly ED-Razbam business. Regardless of the situation, Ron handles it wrong. At this point, it becomes a play to aggrevate and pressure ED, by building own narrative and leveraging customers. Let Hoggit deal with drama, while we stick to getting what customers want, and leave everything else to theirs respectively.

This is a wishlist thread, let's not derail. Ask any further questions in main channels.

In light of the upcoming strategic/resource aspect, expanding transport aircraft (UH-1H, Mi-8, CH-47F, C-130, ++) as well as progressing combined arms, I see the ability to construct FARPs inside missions as essential. This could be done in a basic way, where a composition of the required vehicles in a close enough vicinity (e.g. 50m), would allow a ground commander to create a invisible FARP (possibly through the vehicle responsible for communications on the FARP - special keybind or so). That would give a new mission, and usefull one to both utility aircraft, as well as combined arms users. Another example to use it, could be triggering through a specific "code" with a marker on F-10 map. Group the required vehicles close enough, as a ground commander, enter F-10 and add a marker on that spot with correct "code" to create a invisible FARP. Would be neat. Thanks!

Precisely!

It seems like the devs are focused on theirs, just like e.g. MilTech-5, Polychop-Simulations and more. I'm pretty sure they don't plan to build a module for themselves only Patience, good things take time - sometimes even more than 8 years, apparently. Stay put! EDIT: I will also add - the development time, is not any different from others, if a finished module is what Magnitude 3 wants to release. Just notice how many modules have been in a "early access"-state, and how long. There is nothing wrong with either model of releasing modules. Again, let's wait and see.

Synergy: Speculation should be avoided in such instance. It is low to attempt pointing fingers, when the situation is unknown. Further guesstimating, is doing nobody any good. Let's wait and see what comes out of it! With that said, the posture that "continue using your products as before", is obviously a very short-sighted one. We all remember what became of Hawk. Intellectual property rights taken into account, it is never fair to a customer to treat them with "customer agreements" (we never promised anything). I, for one, noticed that in the previous newsletter (12.04.2024), there is a picture of a Mi-24P used as advertising for a new campaign released. The skin on that Mi-24P, is currently not available. I do business, I know my rights. If you wish to slam the "it's all in the customer agreement"-talk, then I will gladly open a legal case for false advertising of a product! I remind, I asked about a position on this, and still haven't recieved an answer. The reason I don't go the legal way, is because I enjoy the work of ED, and always have. Frankly, great company and great people. In a niche industry, however, the key to survival is taking care of your customers. It's perfectly fine that ED doesn't put Razbam modules on hold from sale. They have a business to run - all fair and square. What I do, is question their posture claiming that this is a "private" matter and customers shouldn't worry. When you know what's at stake, you definitely should worry! Those of us who have been here from the start, remember what happened to Hawk! Telling a customer to chose between rolling their DCS-installation back to 1.2 (stoneage) to fly Hawk vs. having access to all the other (newer) modules they bought, is not okay at all! This should not be a either/or. The company, should very clearly inform (especially new) customers about the potential risk that the products might run into (lack of support). This is the concept of "transparency" in business! We don't have any details currently, but that also means that, regardless of plans, ED cannot guarantee the continuation of support for Razbam modules. If they could do it, they would make an official statement avoiding concern! That's why, if anything, during times like these, it's important to not be pre-emptive and too assuming, but at least be informative of the "danger". This, such that someone doesn't shell out for modules that cease working tomorrow. I can guarantee that the community didn't forget the Hawk (I'm nor pointing fingers), we surely won't forget a multitude of other modules stopping to work from the get-go! (If that becomes the case). I am not writing this for myself, but for fresh members and newer customers who might not be as well informed. I personally know what I signed up for. There are however practices, which can damage your reputation beyond repair. I don't mind a plausible appology either, followed by an explanation why modules might not work. What I do mind though, is the mentality of "keeping in the dark"! You have customers, you have an obligation - sentimental most of all. Please be clear, when asked, about you not being able to currently guarantee the longevity of a product, otherwise make a statement about it being covered (positive). In either case, there is a chance to come out of this clean. Thank you!

Confirming that it still freezes. To reproduce: - Start a mission with hot-started aircraft. - Zoom out fully, then in again, on the map on Abris. (You can also start out by zooming in, and then out. The point is, it occurs when big changes are made in zoom (and within short period of time)) - The map will hang, with only the symbology adjusting to the appropriate zoom-level. - After a while, the map will adjust correctly too. It would be a great feature, if it was one. Simulate the slowdown of an Abris processor (on any module really) if realistic. @Flappie if you need a track, tell me, and I'll provide a short one. EDIT: Corrections

"... simulating a proper simulator..." - what? You obviously have no clue what you're writing. I'll decide on the rest!

EDIT: Scratch it, noticed the updated tutorial.

The above mentioned refer to a facebook post which is sourced off Wikipedia. People have a funny concept of what constituates a good source. Can't wait till Tiktok becomes the next best around here. In any case, the ability to supercruise is really dependant on two factors: thrust-to-weight ratio and aircraft layout (aerodynamic properties). It isn't however as simple as stating that an aircraft posessing both will be capable of supercruising. It's more individual than that. Fact is, unless a proper CFD simulation, reliable chart is presented or actual pilot (possibly someone knowing one), it's pure speculation. Checked "Manuel Pilote Mirage 2000 C" (don't ask me how I got it, or to post it) and there is no mention of the capability. That doesn't, however, mean anything. An SME could provide valuable input here (to which Razbam should have access) or a confirmation from Razbam. Eventually, there are French forums, where a user might have a friend of a friend in the French Air Force. Until then, speculation.

Я не перевожу. Не привык к русской номенклатуре. Нет Позвольте мне объяснить просто: Баг - Скорость может быть достигнута разными способами на вертолете. Один из способов - ориентироваться вниз и двигаться вертикально. Таким образом можно уменьшить расход. Подшипники винта могут иметь угол наклона 0° в таком маневре. Здесь они не будут создавать подъем (0° ИШ1-15) и не должны пересекаться. На треке они сталкиваются. Это неправильно. Винт разрушится, да, но подшипники не должны сталкиваться. О скорости вертолета. Мировые рекорды скорости выше 450 км/ч (аналогично автомобилям - X2). Но достаточно об этом. Я упомянул, что в моих старых тестах (реалистичных, но опасных) можно было достичь скорости более 450 км/ч без повреждений. Вот и все. Моя точка зрения - винтовые винты не должны подниматься-опускаться достаточно, чтобы пересекаться, при угле наклона = 0° ИШ1-15. В этом моя диспут. Изучите мой трек. Посмотрите на винт снаружи. Подшипники не слишком близко, но вдруг они повреждаются. Что-то не так. Не поймите меня неправильно - вертолет не выступает хуже.