RedTiger

Nothing except the wingmen of the guy who died because Mr. MiG decided to cash in all his smash for a quick kill. I think that would be short-sighted at best, suicidal at worst. MiG kills bandit, bandit's wingy kills MiG, MiG's wingy kills bandit's wingy. A 2 to 1 kill ratio is atrocious, almost barbaric. Yeah, this is way, way simplified, but its something to think about.

You're a funny guy. :noexpression: :P

The first one reminds me of a Vietnam-style firebase. Don't know much about how they do in Afghanistan. Are they still using that concept?

Condor is like a niche of a niche of a niche: flight sims -> civilian flight -> gliders. I'm all for oohing and ahing at a good FM, but its disappointing that its all wrapped up in a glider. I got all excited at their plane packs but then was sad to find that all they are is gliders. Can I fly the prop plane that tows the glider maybe? :D

TekaTeka hasn't been around here for awhile. :(

I think this poll is a little lopsided. :D I'm not voting but I will say this: to this day I still find the IL2 FMs to be top notch. Most of my problems with that sim have to do with the AI's super FM, but the player FMs are still the standard for WW2sims. I find this amazing in light of how old it is. Never do I feel like anything is scripted. It never feels like your plane is doing stupid stuff it shouldn't. You can fly straight up in the air into a full out stall and still maintain control of the aircraft the whole time if you're experienced flying it. I can practically "feel" when I'm at the edge of the envelope. I can only wish LOMAC had this same feeling. So what is "Condor"? EDIT: Nevermind, I think I found what it is: http://www.condorsoaring.com/about.htm

Sounds beliveable to me. You gotta recoup those costs in some way.

TBH, I'm not sure why it was decided to put TV on the Raptor (looks cool, sounds impressive?). I assume one of the reasons was to be able to do this high alpha stuff. Yet you have a USAF pilot in the Su-30MKI debrief saying that a Raptor pilot using that TV high alpha, post stall is a "rookie mistake"! :music_whistling: There was a good discussion awhile back about this. Someone asked if the Russian's share the idea that "speed is life" because their fighters seem to be tailored to fight slower and can reach higher angles of attack. I think the conclusion was that they most certainly do know about the whole energy-maneuverability concept, but I don't think it was ever fully explained what impact that had on their fighter designs.

I'll agree that the MiG-29 is certainly not an ill designed plane. You're clueless about this one. End of story. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that the US is the only country which works on its errors. If you think I'm a member of whatever fanboy group you're putting GGTharos in, you are sorely mistaken. There are conclusions that he has come to regarding Russian aircraft that I simply do not agree with. However, the reason I don't agree with them is because I at least tried to do some research and I came to a different conclusion. MY point is that you said the F-16 was ill designed. You put a little ":P" next to it, but I decided to address it because what you said was just plain silly. Do you even a thing about how the F-16 was developed? I do AND I also know about the original development of the MiG-29.

Ok, to give my honest opinion, arguing AoA capability in terms of "this fighter is better than that one" is like arguing a fighter that is painted a some shade of purple is better. You can have the plane that can turn up its own ass and obtain 45 degree AoA, I'll take the one that can fight in the verticle and boom and zoom you while you do your aerobatics. :pilotfly: And if I have the Raptor, I have both. :P BUT...Pilotasso, that isn't what that pilot said in the video, or at least not how I took it. It was clear to me that the staggered take-off was from fear of FOD and the prospect of having to ship an engine off to Russia.

That's rich. If the F-16 is ill designed, care to point out a plane that isn't ill designed? Air shows don't count. Niether do planes designed recently, it must be a contemporary of the F-16. I dare you to. Also, give some combat examples, preferably with sortie rates, air to air kills, air to ground kills. Life-span of the airframe would also be good. Accident rate too. Fuel fraction would be nice. Can you also include the average number of hours the pilot has in the plane? This is indirectly related by design, but it would be nice to compare those hours in the "well-designed" plane vs. the Viper drivers. I'm waiting. :D

I agree...seeing as how you said almost exactly what I said. :noexpression: Yes, the take-away here is that trying to future proof is dumb. Really dumb. The further you go in the future OR the further you look back in the past, the dumber it gets. Imagine if Jane's F-15E or F/A-18 had been future-proofed. We'd have a game that needs a 3.0 ghz single core, Win 98, and glide support.

Great pictures! Man, can they make the dorsal spine on the MiG-29 any fatter? The rear visibility has got to be almost as bad as the MiG-21. If it gets any fatter it won't be the dorsal spine anymore, it will be the dorsal fin like a whale!

Wow, thats interesting. I am in the USA and IIRC, I bought Crysis for less than what BS will cost me.

QFT, QFT, QFT! I'd be totally in that boat too if simulations weren't complex and I didn't need some help when I started playing them. Asking for help eventually became actively participating in the community since flight sims are based on interesting real-life things. In contrast, I play other games but I have no contact with anyone online about them, only my offline friends.

Hey there Mr. Ghost! I haven't been following it, but I just read the first post in the original thread about the Cougar. Sounds neat. I have CH stuff so I'll check it out. Thanks!

For the record, on several separate occasions ED has stated why water is rendered under the land. Their explanation is that it at the time LOMAC was developed, it would have taken far more horsepower to do the calculations to figure out where all the water ends and where the land begins. The fact that this is still in BS (which by the way, was stated many months ago and is probably still in the Q&A thread) is due to the limitations of using the engine that is already available vs. major reworking of that engine.

Uh...no. Both represent the same aircraft, and that aircraft is the F-35.

Ugh...Linkin Park *shudder*. Anyways, I don't see why it would be surprising. I was under the impressions that a tail slide was more of a test of how engines handle high-alpha conditions without flaming out more than anything having to do with the slide itself.

Fair enough, but please realize that you are "unique" to the point that your view is not one commonly held by the majority. The entire world is nothing but one big cycle of compensating others for expertise they have that you don't and cannot/will not obtain because of opportunity costs. Otherwise everyone would have to be to jack of all trades, which would suck because it would just make almost everything everyone does mediocre. Mediocrity sucks. ;)

Let me share a phrase popular from my country: Time is money A person's time is valuable. My time is valuable to me. What you call "free" I call "quite a bit of work to make and get it to work with no guarantee it will work and therefore been a total waste of time AND money". It doesn't have anything to do with quality. It has everything to do with: 1. Not wanting to waste my time when others do it better (common concept here; you focus on your strengths and compensate others to do what they can do better than you) 2. Wanting to have some sort of support that device "x" is intended to work with product "y". Want proof that this is the way things generally work in the real world? Ask people why they buy a Dell desktop instead of building their own. Despite the fact that I have built my own, I have absolutely no problems understanding why others do not. So...why don't you go into business building superior IR Trackers? If you can show me that you're product is better than Track IR and all the same games support it, I'll pay you the premium price. :D

I don't think ED has ever officially said as much, but I strongly suspect they were trying to make the sim "future-proof". Bad idea. That NEVER works. We should be glad that it isn't worse. ;) There's a particular MMO game out there that was released in 2004 that did specifically attempt to be future-proof. The result is that it runs like absolute crap on any modern system, even an ultra-high end one. It wasn't designed with the concept of multi-core processors, it was optimimized for a very fast single core processor. In short, it was made to run on super fast rig using 2004-style processors and components. If anyone can think of any game/sim that was future-proofed that did not suffer from it, I'd like to know. LOMAC is all about absolutely vulgar displays of horsepower. Many of the things that make a game like CoD4 uses to make it look good but run smooth are absent from LOMAC. Couple this with the tendency for any sim to be processor-intensive when compared to something like CoD4 and you have a whole 'nuther animal. ;)

If they were shooting at what I think they were, its not at all uncommon to be shooting at targets that basically amount to iron plates.

No...I was the critical one, perhaps too critical.

Gary, your last post made me want to add something to be fair to zaelu; it is very important to be informed and know about the alternatives. EDIT: My crystal ball tells me that this thread will be moved to the tech forum. :D