RedTiger

I have yet to see any PC game/sim that was not modded to a higher standard by the fans. The modding community, being the PC hardware enthusiasts they are, will make all kinds of high-res, high-end mods. I'm not seeing how DCS: BS is any different...

If you're looking for help on the actual "dogfight" part, meaning within visual range combat, this is an excellent resource: http://www.simhq.com/_air/acc_library.html Pay special attention to anything written by Andy Bush. Pay EXTRA special attention to the "It's All a Matter of Perspective" series: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_020a.html Reading those were like a light bulb turning on.

I'm assuming on that last one you replaced one of the civi vehicles with the Ferrari. You should make an official mod of that. I'd love to strafe some guy's sports car! ;)

Holy crap!!! :surprise: I do believe no one has ever put dinosaurs in LOMAC before. Good job! :thumbup:

+1 :lol:

Great job on this! This type of thing should be in multiplayer for flight sims from be beginning. Air Quake might be a thing of the past! :)

Is TrackIR working yet? What about using multiple input devices? Any modern sim without these is DOA.

Pretty sure I've read about the F-22 being able to do that, but that isn't surprising. Its cool that it works.

I just want to say for all of those reading, I do hope you do your research and make an informed decision. This ^^^^^ is what finally made be decide to buy CH gear. Those people make controllers for professional and industrial applications. I do get a little ticked off and I am very quick to inform when someone says a CH stick feels like a toy. Why, because its plastic? Its like when people don't understand that a sheet of plywood is actually stronger than just a piece of solid wood. Just because the CH is plastic, doesn't mean it isn't strong. I would hesitate to refer to these as toys: http://www.chproducts.com/oem/hg_IV_multi_oval.html http://www.chproducts.com/oem/finger_resistive.html What feels like a "real" fighter stick is subjective unless you've actually handled the real thing. I probably never will, so I would have to take people's word for it. I decided that I wouldn't worry so much about that and just go with a proven quality product from a company that makes heavy-duty controllers for professional applications.

I'm sorry if this has already been said (in a hurry, didn't bother to read the whole thread :doh: ), but when a gaming magazine reviews a sim, you have to approach in differently. One one hand, you have reviewers who probably view something like Crysis as the standard for graphics. They may feel that such an endeavor as learning the Ka-50 requires a lot more hand-holding than what we'd expect -- "RTFM!". Remember how many newbies you've seen who don't understand the idea of "processor-intensive". I know since I was one of them. Sims are totally opposite than other PC games in terms of CPU vs. GPU. OTOH, you have a good glimpse of how an average PC gamer might approach Black Shark and what they might think of it. This is useful in many ways, like figuring out how to make the sim more user-friendly. One thing I agree with is that the tutorials need some work. They are far from useless, but eventually there really does need to be a bit more hand-holding. I have hopes that a new system will eventually be developed where the tutorials are truly tutorials -- you perform all the actions while you are guided on what to do, step by step. The entire sim doesn't move on to the next step until you've successfully accomplished the current step. Don't "spawn" that SA-10 SAM until I've actually figured out how to ready my HARMs and know how to target it! You both have to take such reviews with a grain of salt and also view them as an opportunity to see what the average Joe thinks.

No, what I mean is that a country having a GCI system isn't a big deal, like in contrast to operating an AWACS or developing your own. Even a relatively poor country could have GCI. I could imagine it being one of the most basic things needed for national defense. I had wondered if these fighters had any type of help from the ground or if they were just using their own radars and SPO.

I've re-read the article both with babelfish and google translate and really digested it and I agree. One of my long-standing questions was answered by the article about whether either side had any ground-controlled radar and apparently they did. I know having GCI isn't that huge of a deal, but again, Ethiopia, misconceptions, and all that. ;) The end of that article takes you by surprise. All this information on how the engagements played out and then a conclusion that is very critical of the Russian air force's practices.

Ah...I think I get it. I foresee this being a weak point in flight sims, unfortunately. Back on topic. I'm guessing that the planes in the E-E aerial battles probably did not have any ECM. Some part of me always wonders why this conflict is taken so seriously in terms of judging Russian missile performance. I grew up being told "don't waste food! There are starving people in Ethiopia!". Now they have air to air battles and we're surprised that their missiles might not be the best quality or well maintained. :huh:

Here some for the Fulcrum: Unfortunately, I could not find any pictures that weren't at an angle. Maybe these plus Vekkinho's will help.

A new MiG afterburner texture would be cool. I'll see if I can dig up any photos of the AB and post them in a the new thread. P.S. Your Su-27 afterburner texture is really nice! :) I can't rep you anymore ATM.

Interesting article! I wish the translation worked better. :( I've always wondered about this and how this is done in real life. It works well in flight sims, especially against AI. You can do this in Falcon 4.0 and LOMAC for this exact effect. I have two problems with this though. First, it's been discussed that in real-life cases, a lock-on tone was considered to mean a missile was launched. No waiting around for a launch signal since it may never come, but your fiery death might while you wait. You get locked on to, you go defensive. I've read myself that this is how F-15 pilots operated in Desert Storm. So, depending on how accurate your info is on the range and altitude of the bandit, do you ALWAYS go defensive? Does that even makes sense? Where do you chance it and close a bit more or climb or increase your speed before you launch your missile? A lock tone from an Iraqi MiG-29A should be treated differently than one from an Indian Su-30MKI, right? Or maybe not? Do real pilots ever chance it as a standard operating procedure? Second...does anyone really try to get into optimal parameters before firing? Rmax is supposed to be the maximum range you can hit a non-maneuvering target...hmm...kinda like the bandit that's continuing to close to his Rtr range, doesn't it? It just seems like you're asking for a missile in the face unless you greatly outclass your opponent in your ability to operate at high altitudes and you've got a missile like the Aim-120 that tries to maximize particularly the Rtr range. What do you do if you do not have this advantage? If you can both operate at 40k feet+ and you both have missiles like this, how do you reach Rtr at that altitude without dying? Stealth??? :O ;) ^^^^ Classified stuff, I'm sure. :alien:

Looking good, looking good! :)

Still, whatever gets the job done...

@Safari Ken As someone who has had both good sound cards and used on-board sound, I can confirm that sound cards do indeed sound better, but in my opinion not so much as to make one required if the end-user isn't planning on having a complex speaker arrangement. I have placed sound cards firmly in the "mix/max" category because it is very much for those who want to min/max and want the best performance even if it isn't the best bang for the buck. The system I'm using right now I built a year ago. It was the first computer I'd ever built. I didn't install any sound card and do not plan to for the next one I'm going to build. For my 9 or 10 year old Yamaha 2.1, I just didn't feel it was necessary and it allowed me to save some cash for a better video card. PC games and movies sound perfectly fine. With 2.1, the sound a hell of a lot better than a regular TV's speakers (can you tell that I have no interest in home theaters? ;) ), and that's perfectly fine by me.

That's a nifty little fighter there. It's impressive when a country decides to develop their own fighter rather than buy one from one of the 'big three'. :)

Fair enough, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. However, I will laugh like crazy if I ever catch you praising the technological level of the latest Sukhoi or, if we ever see it, the PAK FA. :D

This is what I found, in it's entirety: "128. The IRR mode is used under the VFR conditions, in the complicated jammingto radar situation, in case of the radar failure and when attacking the target without own radar irradiation so as to enhance the secrecy of the target approach. The interception and attack of the aerial target in the IRR mode are executed in the rear hemisphere. Switch on the mode after takeoff. In the MR (GATE) mode, with the cooperation selected and the ranges measured by the integrated radar/sighting system in the quasiscan mode, the Dperm max mark (Dp,. min in equal to zero) is indicated on the screen. With the integrated radar/sighting system changed over to the main channel (and the laser range is not indicated), the D Perm max 1 and D marks are displayed, the D perm max and D per min.values may changed regularly. The target detection range in teh IRR mode amounts to 25 10 km at the background of the free space and to 10 5 km at the background of the clouds. The target lockon range is less that the target detection range by 2 or 3 km. For operating the integrated radar/sighting system in thsi mode, it is necessaryt o proceed as follows: -set the ACS MODES selector switch to the MR position; -use the FHS RHS selector switch to select the hemisphere to be attacked; -use the SPAN knob to ascertain the target size (the large, middle or small size); detect the target blip on the windshield indicator, making use of the information deliverd from the command post on the target attitude with respect to the flight course; -in the presence of the jamming and complication in discrimination of the target, remove a certain portion of the marks displayed on the windshield indicator by decreasing the sensitivity of the optical locator laser station desensitization; use the control knob to superimpose the gate on the target blip; depress the WSM, LOCKON PF button and keep it depressed until the target is locked on (for 2 or 3 s). The target designation to the misile infrared homing heads and preparation of the missiles are performed automatically after the optical locator laser station changes over to automatic tracking. The presentation of the mode information and aiming are similar to those as in the radar mode. -as soon as the LP command is applied, launch the missiles by depressing the RKT MKS B trigger; -break off the attack after launching the missiles or by the MB command (break off the attack by the BKWY command towards the aiming circle displacement). For ensuring the preparation of the missiles for launching, if the target is locked on by the infrared homing head and no information an the target range is given, the LP command is delivered in the flickering mode. Launch the missiles in response to the LP command at the range less the maximum permissible one determined by eye or according to the information delivered from the command post. In this case, the windshield indicator ranage scale reads only the maximum ranges, the minimum rage mark is set at zero." MiG-29 Flight Manual: Declassified, pgs 47-48 Making sense of some of this is difficult. The translation is bad and a lot of it is info specific to the aircraft.

I have that manual too, the weapons employment section is pretty simplistic. And I agree, the translation is really, really bad...on purpose! They supposedly didn't translate it better to preserve some of the idiosyncrasies of the original Russian (translation: we're too lazy or cheap to have a native speaker fluent in English and Russian proofread it).

Careful! You might cut yourself on that axe you're grinding. ;) EDIT: Let's hope the pilot made it out ok.

That Australian AF one was what I was mostly talking about. Isn't that website just a big crusade against the Australian AF from buying the F-18?