iLOVEwindmills

Thanks, but now I read this post and the last line just adds to more confusion. http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?62971-Harrier-GR-7-9-lack-of-gunpod&p=1013475#post1013475 And happy new year to you as well.

So could they or could they not? It seems the 25mm never came together, and wasn't used due to a variety of technical issues. 30mm Aden wasn't carried by them operationally. But I can't quite understand if that was technically not possible, or just because they wanted to use the mounting points for other equipment.

I was getting broken locks on M2000s earlier, but I'm not sure if that was due to server being wonky or anything with its ECM. I'm not used to it happening against 15C and 27s though. Btw, does the 2000s more powerful ECM setting have any increased effect over the regular setting currently?

Why's that?

Yeah a rotary is I guess a better word for it, cool though.

So the radar elevation is on a slider in the real thing? Would be nice if it's bindable to an axis as well when it becomes available. Should work pretty good for the warthogs resistance slider.

[ame] [/ame] It looks fairly accurate compared to the real thing, which also seems to be not entirely smooth.

Just saying, I'd be a little bit more hesitant considering we probably don't have complete information about what changed between the two. There's quite a significant time gap between the design of the two, and wasn't missile tech advancing quite rapidly at this time? That said, all info helps off course.

Is Magic 1 at all comparable to the 2 though? With a more powerful engine and presumably a whole slew of other upgrades I doubt the info applies to it.

It's not exactly blunt is it, the seeker heads look pretty much identical in shape. Only difference is the Sidewinder is slightly smaller and a bit tapered in the front. I doubt the difference would be significant over the relatively short distance that these missiles are expected to fly. At least compared to amount of drag they experience when making hard turns.

Since the Magic 2 is in dimensions and weight almost identical to the AIM9, and directly competes with it for sales, I think it's a reasonable guess it's comparable in performance. I'd imagine if there were significant performance differences Matra would have never been able to compete with the Sidewinder, as every customer would just opt for the latter.

I think the biggest issue is posed by the short engine burn. I doubt they will make an exception for the Magic and give it reduced drag.

Some sources mention it can pull 50g, which is already more than the 18g listed ingame. There's also some info about engine burn times here and there, but I have no idea what would be considered reliable.

Interesting chart, the Magic speed has pretty much 'can't be right' written all over it.

I know missiles are done by ED, but do you mean it's confirmed to use the wrong stats atm? I don't really keep up that much with the whole ingame vs real life missiles debate, so really I'm just comparing it to the other ingame missiles. That's why I compared it to the AIM9M ingame, which way exceeds it in range.

It's confusing a lot of people probably because there's a bind for flaps in the controls.

What I read about the missile lead me to believe it would perform roughly similar to an AIM9M, but it honestly feels like I'm using an all-aspect R60. The motor burns so incredibly short, and it then decelerates so hard that it absolutely struggles to hit anything outside of throwing distance. Even 2km isn't easy for it against a slow, non-manoeuvring target in a tail chase. The ingame encyclopedia gives it almost identical stats to an R60, with both listed as having 5km range, 18G max and mach 2 max. Though I do not know how representative these are for the actual ingame performance, it does feel about right. It's definitely not a bad missile, at least as long as you fire it really close. But was it really that short ranged? EDIT: Just to be clear, I know there are a lot of misgivings about missiles in general, but that's not exactly what I was going for. I'm really just surprised that it performs more like an R60 than like a Sidewinder, as I expected it to be way more like the latter in terms of range etc.

You can tell which planes are friendly and enemy despite the type being on both sides? Do you even play mp?

You have to accept that there are limitations to software, and you have to work around those. Often you need an unrealistic simplification of a system in order to make the system function in a realistic manner within the context of the sim. The end result from your way of doing things is never being able to tell friend from enemy. This is clearly incredibly unrealistic, so why do you want to make the game less believable?

Then exactly what DCS modules are you playing at the moment that do model any of this with 100% accuracy?

He's asking if the 'max power' mode has a notably increased effect over the regular jamming mode which still allows you to use your own radar. Guess the question is, is it so much more effective at jamming that it is worth losing your radar over? Though I'd imagine this would be more of a wild guess than anything you'd be able to get real life data for.

Note that the visibility settings are set in the mission file in MP now, so your own settings do not matter when playing online. Unless you are the one hosting I guess. The default settings in 1.5 now also depend quite heavily on aspect, where a contact is much harder to spot when viewed directly from the front or side.

Well, if there is in fact no way to tell friend from enemy it won't really be possible to fly it in a public server. At least not for air to air. Just hope the IFF would be a relatively high priority so that it can be properly tested in MP.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset with anyone here. There's clearly an intention to communicate and keep us up to date, which I respect a lot. It's just that we have so little understanding about the workings of the release process, that the info we were getting was only feeding what now seems like unnecessary expectations. No resentment at all, but these are events all sides can learn from and I just want to point that out. So it can be avoided next time.

Because we were working with mid december still, and they also were hyping it up with teaser images. Including the 'last teaser image this week boys' post. Which had pretty obvious connotations at the time it was posted. But when they submit the beta plane to ED on Thursday, then it needs to go through QA, then it takes 'several days' to build an installer, it's clear that it never was going to be this week. With the info we had it was reasonable to expect this week, but it appears to never have been an option. That is why it would have been nice to have a 'not yet guys'. It's fine, that's the way it is. Just I don't see why this couldn't have been said sooner.