cauldron

Thank you. i'll try that.

Title says it all. I want to be able to buy from steam even though i am running OpenBeta install. Possible? if so how? Thanks.

I think the reason is actually very simple: Everyone likes to win, no one likes to lose. Making mis-matched comparisons comes from this basic statement which is often hidden within the argument.

Ran a test on latest Beta build: Four mig-25's empty hard points, 50% fuel w/ unlimited fuel option 'on', standard atmosphere, zero winds all altitudes: 1 @ 65000feet, 1@ 59000feet, 1@52000feet, 1@50k all spawned under initial conditions of M2.83 which is accepted by the Mission Editor as well as straight waypoints to the same conditions... @65k: 394 IAS, 1436 TS, 2.50 M... after 4min flight time ... 378 IAS, 1390 TS, 2.42 M @59k: 479 IAS, 1523 TS, 2.65 M ... after 4min flight time ... 472 IAS, 1497 TS, 2.60 M @52k: 588 IAS, 1582 TS, 2.76 M ... after 4min flight time ... 588 IAS, 1579 TS, 2.75 M @50k: 602 IAS, 1542 TS, 2.69 M ... after 4min flight time ... 603 IAS, 1543 TS, 2.69 M Note: the only stable altitude is the 50k one, and the best speed is at the 52k regime. Ai mig-25 test 1.miz

In DCS I cannot get M2.8 from even an empty MiG-25, and its highest MACH occurs at 52,000' any higher and it gets worse. This seems fairly poor performance where the region of greatest available thrust should be at 17.5km to 18km (59.000') and be limited to M2.83. The Ai comes no where near this. Also the choice of missiles evasion seems to be the same for an Ai plane flying at 20,000' as for a high MACH high altitude - pitch up and turn to the side, which makes no sense for very high MACH and Altitude.

Title says it all. We have been seeing teases for a while now of the S-200 sam system, and recently the zsu-57 spaag system. Any word to comment ?

Nineline forum survey request on a very much related topic: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284601 Why this Community survey, which is still active btw - so go vote, is buried on the nth page of a sub-forum is beyond me, but it is what it is.

Rainmaker, You are very much welcome. Enjoy flying in the sim!

some basics to help Ok, i re-read your post. Its not the plane F-15c vs. A-10c, its you, but don't worry you do have what it takes if you can land the A-10 you can land the F-15...Just a few pointers if I may: 1. Practice long straight in approaches with zero wind and zero turbulence. Set them up in the mission editor ready to go. ( slot two aircraft in the editor so you can just re-join if you crash). 2. Practice noticing the cues that you are slowing down or speeding up. Also practice noticing the cues that you have arrested a slow down and power down a tad to not speed back up. 3. Practice noticing the visual cues and instruments telling the the above as well as your pitch attitude. 4. Your target speed depends on how heavy you are, heavier = faster speed needed to land. You are looking for an angle of attack (AoA). practice keeping your AoA steady at whatever weight you have. 5. Path to runway visual cues: important: if the runway is rising in your frontal windscreen/hud then your are not holding a steady path to the runway and are falling short and low. If the runway is "falling" you are also not holding your path to the runway but this time you are getting to high. Edit: the huds on both planes have a small circle with a tick mark above and to the sides like a mini-airplane: that is your flight path indicator ( stick that to the runway threshold & hold it there - it will help you stabilize your approach. ) That little bugger is your friend, shows very easily your flight path as well as your AoA (the separation from your boresight marker to it{flight path indicator} is your AoA, work to keep it steady where you want.) 6. Practice putting all these together, it'll make your A-10 landing better as well, and your feel better about your progress. Hope this helps. If at all possible get a friend to show you first hand in a two place cockpit how all these changes look and feel, it'll be similar to a real training flight. If not don't fret you'll get it. The reason i believe you feel the A-10 is easier vs. the F-15 is the approach speed is all, faster speeds make less room for mistakes to notice them and less time to correct them, that's all really. Keep practicing and i guarantee you'll get it.

F-15c ILS appch to land Shows an IMC approach to land in VMC conditions. ILS is used and flown. ILS may be a little low for a visual appch. but its a good reference point, ie.3deg path. Now this is almost a max weight landing so the video shows a speed that may be a tad higher than you may be used to.

A long way off maybe, but I hope it comes with a physics model, even if its just a vertical physics model, it could be considered acceptable. Here is a good comparison on visuals at least:

Thank you for your reply. I would say the data cannot be used for comparison - not illegitimate per say - just that there are obvious instances of incompatible results. for example the STR the same but turn radius smaller on the one with higher airspeed. Too many variables are unknown about the tests and the conditions which means you can't make a meaningful comparison. "pitch rate" needs definition in this context, do you mean the rate that you can increase AoA? which again would be very hard to test in equal measure, which explains the subjective conclusion. In summary, you wanted a response - I'd say the data is not good enough for comparing in a legitimate way.

I see some possible experimental inconsistencies: How do you explain equal sustained turn rates yet the higher speed one has a smaller turn radius? How did you measure pitch rate? You have data on ITR of the su-27 as higher than mig-29 yet state a lower pitch rate?

Lol, no bias here.:music_whistling:

.