cauldron

The reason i asked is the following:From the OP: "...The pre-purchase provides both a 20% discount off the retail price and access to the Early Access coming in early 2017. ..." this suggests an early access period, but it's not clear when early access is vs general.

Thanks for the update! to clarify; the Jan 27th launch is the early access launch, or a general launch and early access is from the when to when? ie. would like a confirmation as to when early access starts, and when general access starts, thank you again.

Malek, Your math F=ma is not complete. You forgot that there is another force acting upon the body D Drag. Excess thrust is what you are looking for, you have mass sure but you need drag as your equation for experimental testing is fundamentally flawed. Acceleration = Net accelerating force/mass The "net accelerating force" is excess thrust or a thrust deficit or Thrust-Drag or F(n)=T-D - given that it is flying straight and level and Lift = gravity Your starting equation should be the following: Sum of Lift/drag/gravity/thrust and mass of the object due to F=ma... you have omitted lift drag and gravity from your test. It is completely invalid. From there you will want to get the thrust required for level unaccelerated flight (subsonic) which is: T[r]= W/ (C[L]/C[D]) weight divided by the ratio of coefficient of lift over coefficient of drag. Drag = D(p)+D(i) or Parasitic drag + Induced drag -induced drag is drag due to lift for the most part, and parasitic drag is mostly due to friction but also some energy losses such as cooling losses etc. and that is subsonic nor transonic(getting close to and up to MACH 1) as we won't get into wave drag, etc that start to happen. In short you have trivialized the all forces involved into a static thrust model of the engine - this leads you down a completely false road of experiments. Total subsonic drag coefficient C[d] = c[d]+induced drag coefficient C[d] = c[d] + ( C[L] squared ) / ( pii * e*AR ) Where e= span efficiency factor, pii=pii ie. 3.141559..... , AR aspect ratio C[L] Coefficient of lift = W / ( 1/2*p * V(squared)*S Where W= weight, p density, V elocity, S wing area Now thrust required for unaccelerated flight so you can get to how much excess thrust there may or may not be ( mindfull this will not be static thrust ): T[r] = from above ^^^ You are basically making a a drag polar graph. Then to compare the planes you'll need to determine their proper drag as well as the thrust available for the speed and altitude, the weight, but to get their drag you'll need quite a bit more information. Your test has started you in a good direction, get some aerodynamics books: I recommend: introduction to flight by John D. anderson ISBN 0-07-001639-9 or aerodynamics for naval aviators NAVWEPS 00-80T-80 ISBN 1-56027-140-X or if you are of spanish incline: Aerodinamica y actuaciones del avion por A. Isodoro Carmona ISBN 84-283-2227-9 best regards.

Bogey Jammer, Your assumed superiority in rational thought needs some re-evaluation. At the moment from your posts its very obvious you are at best disrespectful in debating these themes. You will convince no one who is reading your posts of any legitimacy in the content you provide.

We were trying to help you understand why, that's all. If you refuse it is your prerogative. fyi...-I read the entire document in ref to the shoot down thank you. while we are on talking about "reading" is there a "single" reference in that document even once about statute miles ?

JoJo, With due respect to you the journalist may not know better what they are reading and may assume that 40 miles is in SM and thus print an article with a conversion to KM from SM.. but its from the journalist, not from the source. I'd assume such conversions while mathematically correct are wrong as the journalist is wrong in reading the data in the first place. Fyi... most, not all, but most journalists in the US know about as much about aviation as they do about their speedometer in their car... i.e NOT a lot. I've got over 30 years flying experience with experience in incidents and accidents, and the FAA, journalist interpretations are not to be taken as fact, always go to the raw data for that or an expert and always be critically minded. Recall your quote of the investigation: The pilot is quoted as saying "40 miles" that's it, the [km] part of that is from the author, i'm positive the pilot did not under questioning say "40 miles or 64km"... he would have been taken as being facetious to his judges which i doubt that happened. We who are doubting the 64km issue are doubting the conversion, it's clear the pilot stated in NM, why would an author knowingly err a report if not from simple ignorance? i doubt its malicious.

Well I believe it's the fault of the author in not being clear, but one thing is clear: it's not known for certain and you cannot make that a point of argument, and in any rational sense it is not a strong point to base further conjecture upon. Aviation reports in general whether civil or military or FAA or released reports to the "public" tend to be in the US in NM not SM, this isn't the highway patrol or some crappy news network like CNN you know. If a pilot is quoted as saying "40 miles" in an investigation it's a high confidence that they are NOT converting to Statute miles. A good author will, if they are converting, mention that they have paraphrased the source to SM from NM. Assuming the other way around is dubious and with an unknown, i'd favor Occam's razor over anything else - at the very least leave it as unknown.

My recommendation... test again in VMC. Chasing needles is a common error for IFR-IMC approaches... not a good situation to test a FM.

Personally this chart... the sooner it goes away the better. But lets assume its mostly correct it shows the F-5e @ 9deg/s and the mig-21 @ 8deg/s... Not a "wide margin" and considering that its a single data point, the less value that graph has. My guess its taken from some airplane encyclopedia book with its source already diluted, or maybe its out of context from the relevant passage in the book. remember to read critically charts and statistics as they can be misleading. best regards fellow enthusiasts.:) For example: On this graph what leaps out at me right away is the comparison between the F20 tigershark and the F-5e both showing almost the same sustained turn rates, even though the F20 has at worst, the same drag per AoA & speed, at best better.. and... it has significantly stronger thrust from a new engine, yet they show as almost the same sustained turn rate (less than +/- 1 deg per second). Something is NOT jiving there. This also considering that the F20 was the first plane to encounter G-LOC due to the rate of gain in g's (ie how fast it could gain g's) causing the loss of two planes and their pilots. But, it's really to bad the author chose to place one scale as thrust-to-weight and the other Sustained turn rate since they are not even directly related, thus leaving any reader to pry out of the graph relevant data about drag and excess thrust. But in the end what can be seen is the effect of drag vs thrust "if" its correct.. along with the single data point issue. :P I would be interested to see if this stacks up against Viggen or other known EM graphs. Makes a strong case for the Canard deltas low drag @ high AoA vs Lift... maybe the Rafale-typhoon-Gripen are on to something ?

Hi, guys... quick interjection here. Thrust to weight has nothing to do with sustained turn rate. simple. What DOES have to do with it is P Specific Excess Thrust. When P=0 it is sustainable. Its basically Thrust vs Drag... NOT weight. Therefore: if you cannot determine drag then you cannot determine P, its that simple and no, guesses about wing forms can be so incredibly way off the mark that even generalizations should be taken as pure guess work. That means DRAG for a given LIFT directly influences sustained turn rate which means you can't guess or generalize at the drag in a turn if it is not measured. Please gents stick to the facts. regards. btw - the "zero" curve on the EM chart is P=0 and are usually equivalent in feet/sec until you reach max lift or max structure limitations. That's why better rates have negative values b/c the plane needs to make up for a deficit of so many ft/sec in potential energy. Run it down to zero g's and you get the max energy recovery ability of the plane. So when u need to regain energy the charts clearly show that you have to be very close to zero g's to really accelerate, or you'll just keep 'dragging' around at low energy... also key to extending from an engagement, you gotta hit zero g's even if you are banked. Personally i think its a more interesting discussion on how the planes FM simulates instantaneous turn falloff rate down to sustained as much more interesting than minor tweaks in sustained, which don't really determine the outcome of matches much anyways. Love the viggen since childhood reading "air combat" magazines... glad to see it "come to life" Thank you LN studios.:pilotfly:

JoJo, A flight report of "40 miles" is without reservation NM not statute miles, i believe the author of the text mis-translated to KM... an aviation report using SM would undoubtedly be remarked upon as SM as SM are clearly useless data for the most part in aviation. Authors of text often abuse the Km to miles equivalents to satisfy the plurality of readers, and are not clear if it's themselves annotating the report or if it's from the report itself. Thus i would recommend that one should be be critical of the author, and not to asses the "km" equivalent used by the author as confirmation that the "miles" report from the pilot was in SM and not NM. Small point but if its used to quantify the report of miles as NOT NM but in SM to be highly questionable.

So..how would one do a TACAN mode Y with a friend who is also with T/R on mode Y. How would i set up to see bearing distance to them?

...why... are we using wikipedia? When razbam released the charts they intend to use for the aircraft already?

A big thank you, round 8 was my first time flying blue flag - had a great time! Salute to the buddyspike group and pilots!

JoJo said it... here's some video evidence! Que Corra el video! :megalol: [ame] [/ame] & another... [ame] [/ame]

From what i have seen in Falcon BMS is wing flapping - which is totally wrong! <--- ok, a tad harsh but hear me out and listen to me later .... that's called flutter and F-16's don't flutter within their flight envelopes. What real wings do do however is flex under load. So an F-16 pulls hard and the wings create a cantilever type force upwards along the wing, the wing will "flex" upwards, remove the force and it reduces the flex. To actually be able to 'see' it you need LARGE force differences. The only ones that can do it, is lift vector forces, caused by pilot induced g-loading the flex is relatively slow and in tune with how hard the pilot pulls the plane. the only other forces out there that can do it are from turbulence effects, usually found at low altitude and high speed caused by the plane flying through different densities and windshears in the air as it flies through them - not high altitude speed whether transonic or supersonic as that would be flutter. In pilot talk these are known as buffets. High speed and low altitude .5g buffet frequency is a measurable attribute of aircraft, some more sensitive to them than others. Main factors are atmosphere conditions ie. turbulence (pressure variations from hotter and colder local air pockets and windshears between them as well -ie. local wind variations.) also the plane itself, airspeed and wing-loading as well as aspect ratio. Traditionally delta wings are highly sensitive to low level ride buffets vs other wing types, but they have their many advantages elsewhere, especially unstable designs, not the stable ones from the mirage3 era. So back to the F-16 BMS ... wings will not "flap" and the degree that they flap seem be not related to real life, so its a 'made up' feel. Had they modeled wing flexing and not flapping - flutter - that would have been nice. But I understand the effort to add something to the game t "feeling" which is really important in sims as that is what they most lack in general. So i would give BMS an A for effort but a C for barely passing showing F-16's wings fluttering, and not flexing. my 2 cents. I would love that razbam program in low altitude buffeting on the mirage, a true function of flying through the atmosphere at high speed and low altitude- usually day time (differential ground heating causing thermals great for this!) would do WONDERS to the immersion effect of flying the module. When i make a mission with my friends in the editor i almost always add a haze layer and low level turbulence as well as winds to make it feel as best as possible. having a wind even small is the norm for landing, raely do u get the cup-of-milk air conditions that the air is calm and even and you can fly hands off with zero buffets - great time to do dependent flights though :P no one gets scared or vomits :P add yes it's happened to me :puke: So... uh i guess this turns out to be a plead to razbam to add to the module when able buffet effects, and along that would be awesome over wing condensation effects dependent on lift force and atmosphere density -humidity.

:pilotfly:

LL is not funstional yet. The 3 point turn switch on the left VEI-[]-PCM Vei=standby and warm up (idk how long is needed to warm up), [] normal, PCM priority to jammer "Priority Counter Measures" BR toggle T-M-A This is your jammer ... T=test,M='on',A= off { Ariet in French means 'off' } DA toggle T-M-A This is your RWR ... T=test,M='on',A= off D2A and LL and further to the right are not functional yet. I do not know if PCM vs []"normal" have any difference in game at the moment. Please if anyone knows better please speak up. <---- Please! Operational use: you'll want your jammer functions binded for easy use, don't just cruise with it 'on' because it broadcasts where you are to anyone looking in your general direction with a radar on. It helps: 1. Reduces range to lockon, especially good at targets trailing you and ones you have 'notched' 2. Helps reduce probability of missile impact from a radar missile. Very useful to use jammer if, used at the right times, if not its a giant "i'm HERE sign" on your plane. For example: M2000 vs. F-15 radar in game 1.5version head-on both, jammer reduces lockon and target info range from about 52NM to about 28nm give or take Prf modes etc. Regrettably the M2000 radar picks up the F15 at about 46NM and ~12NM if F-15 has its jammer on. A tough spot to be in if you are the M2000, tough but not impossible. F-15 chasing you: 17nm down to about 10-11NM My advise is to go test it, with friends! Cheers!

Where am i ?: Close to blackout: Pre-morning burn: Cat-1 minimums landing: Thirsty: Taking fuel... after 1 hour of getting very angry at TExaco! PS. Love the probe and tanker lights! they do help!:

Pepto... just in case... my commentary was not meant toward your OP. :P

I personally believe that when you create something new its one of the hardest things to accomplish, because you gain the loathing of those who would lose their personal interests with the success of your endeavor and only doubt and disbelief from the rest due to the risk in this "new" creation. I personally salute the creativity and resolve by razbam to create a sim that runs on a single pc, while still able to do acrobatics. There exist garage sized flight sim computers that do worse when you stray off the edge of a "normal" envelope than what we have today here. I think such disparaging remarks in particular toward a developer that has been so open with us about the project's goals, in all its aspects, whether its systems or, flight model - and ... have made repeated efforts to accommodate "we" the users - is frankly disappointing to see in this forum. oh, and did no one notice that it took half an hour to "stage" the maneuver? Like that could be pulled off vs, even a noob player adversary or for even anyone to take that more seriously than a stunt demonstrates much in my opinion. Its a circus stunt and has a 1 in a million chance of working in an adversarial situation, so why all the hate??? Razbam... I for one, and i believe many out there do solemnly appreciate your work. I salute you. <o

Thanks, i didn't know, haven't been as active as i'd like. Cheers

Please refer to screenshots, video capture is not working for now :mad: All screenshots are taken in refer to same target and taking within seconds of each other, heading was maintained to within +\-5 deg, but you will notice target has large displacement on the radar screen, if you roll up to 90deg its at its worst. If you have same target and roll around with target near boresight this does NOT happen. Shouldn't the radar display a stabilized image based on the Artificial horizon? Any ideas?

Got it on the rotary... Thanks has helped a lot. Still though, wish the radar weren't so absent minded about its track memory.

like... Please...Just one thing .... could you please implement some reacquire logic into the M2000 radar, or at least not have the radar reset to level its elevation when it loses lock... it seems to take an eternity to manually move the antenna down back to where it was. .... please, with puppies kittens and puppy beagles on top!!!! How can you refuse such eyes!