aaron886

Holy crap, enough with the off-topic semantics! Fly Navy!

SO jealous. I wish they would make another round, but apparently they won't. We'll have to settle for the Gunfighter model, which will have a WWII style grip (to be immediately replaced with the HW one when I get my hands on it.)

GREAT to hear! I'm with JAR, everything is looking up. Nothing good is cheap these days, and I'm looking forward to the experience even if it's early days. It's amazing to me that a group of flight sim developers can pull that off. Hopefully ED can match that experience.

Haha. And you thought 90hz with 2106x1200 was tough... :D

He waited for the Easter sale.

Ok, I guess that's fair enough. Conversationally, I usually hear "stall" in reference to an airflow problem or FOD ingestion, and I was under the impression the Oceana mishap was a structural fire, not located in the intake (of all places.) I'll take your word for it until I can find and read the probable cause. Edit: I'll be damned, that's a weird one. Nothing here that indicates the second engine failed in response to the fuel leak, assuming someone paraphrased the probable cause correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash

You... restart it. :huh: Yeah that's a failure due to a fire. I assume this isn't in response to the "how often do modern fighter engines stall" question, because the Oceana Class-A was obviously not a stalled engine (or engines.)

I tried but failed to find the statistic I read recently that gave the single-engine F-16 lower Class-A rates/hull losses than comparable multi-engined fighters. Not necessarily a direct answer to your search. Either way, I tend to be a little nervous about seeing single-engine aircraft on Navy carriers. For what it's worth, aircraft are (especially historically,) designed with two engines to solve power problems, not reliability problems.

Ehhh not so fast. The complexity and effectiveness of control laws, soft-failures/degradation, and regime blending are nothing to ignore. The math is not new, but the years of communication between engineers and pilots has not been for nothing.

If you don't at least think it's both, you're crazy. Funding is politics.

Sawa - incredible!

Looks great! I'm seriously considering it.

Pseudo-science. You're doing this all over these forums. An F-16, by way of example, would not be capable of carrier landing approach speeds at appropriate angles of attack. The pilot would not be able to see properly over the nose. That does not mean the F-16 is inefficient or poorly designed, it is simply designed for a different purpose. Should the F-16 have been used in naval aviation, it would have required a redesign of its wing as well.

Yeah flight test envelope and operational limits are different things. Suffice to say, more alpha than the Viper.

Nice work! Stay safe.

Continually praising it is not necessary either. I agree with him, the movement is terrible, even if the sensors are great.

Good books. Read first hand accounts of Desert Storm and smaller modern conflicts like Viper Pilot by Dan Hampton, they can help give you an impression of the complexity and scale of modern air war. It is interesting to contrast that book with Black Aces High by Robert Wilcox, not written by a fighter pilot. One interesting area to focus on in first-hand accounts is how tactics change in response to the air defense threat environment.

This is nice work!

I doubt I'll find any support in this, and I'm sure the next replies will come back even more vitriolic, but this will close my opinion on the matter: When I pressed the "purchase" button, I was putting up $60 for the listed aircraft and the Nevada map. Both were right there on the list of features. As far as I'm concerned, I paid for that map. If I received the Nevada map only by pre-purchasing the original A-10C beta, and not pre-purchasing meant I would not get the map, and the map was on the list of features for DCS: A-10C, then I paid for the map. Maybe it was somewhere explicitly stated that it was a bonus "gift" and I didn't see it. https://web.archive.org/web/20100927040622/http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=2452&scr=default Not to get personal, but the "you need to do the math" line comes across as condescending and rude, especially from a moderator. It's fine of course to disagree, but I think it can be done more respectfully. Concur, that's really the only thing making this acceptable to me. As I said before, it does look great and I'm definitely excited, just can't help being slightly bothered.

Quite true. Just unusual to not be delivered something I paid for until 5 years later. Essentially, ED has taken my loan and extended it for 5 years with no interest paid. (And I hope all software developers who utilize a pre-purchase scheme realize they really are getting a loan.) Those who pre-purchase now will be rewarded with campaigns and a 20% discount, and those who have been ED's longer-standing faithful customers will not be. Just another small disappointment in the handling of this (now tired) misadventure. Oh well, at least the map is looking good.

Really pleased to finally see this coming together, congratulations ED. I have to say, though, that I had better also receive the campaigns free for having given you money toward this project 5 years ago. That's quite the loan.

:)

Good start! Looks like nice, even UVWs.