RedTiger

I'll repeat my comment from the first page. Mikoyan going out of business? Can I buy a MiG-29? :) EDIT: I missed this from the first page. Great minds think alike. ;) In all seriousness (who says I'm joking about wanting one? ;) ), wasn't there some plan of Russia's to consolidate Mikoyan, Sukhoi, and possibly others under one company?

I've often wondered if that was true. If so, I don't think the Su-25SM needs one. The way Zuyev described it, it was very grainy, scratchy, and hard on the ears. That one in the video sounds better than the one in the Viper by a mile. :)

Cool first post! Good review! :) +1

That HUD is very interesting. It provides some of the symbols and visual cues that you'd see on a Western HUD, but they did it their way. :)

It says "Su-25" and that its on CAS in Georgia, but that could all be BS. That HUD definitely looks Russian, but it is unfamiliar. Anybody know? http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=V3_a9RtFQMc&feature=related EDIT: Found another copy of it that says its the Su-25SM. If so, that explains why it doesn't look familiar. :)

And in case you're wondering what TrackIR is: http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/01-store/store-catalog.html Padlocking is a must if you do not use TrackIR, IMO. If you find it disorienting, Lockonfiles.com has some decent lift line mods that put lines of the canopy for reference. If you want my opinion though...get TrackIR. You won't regret it. ;)

If past communication habits continue, I'll bet we'll receive some sort of word from EvilBivol or Wags before the day (Its 12:59 PM 10/17 US CST where I am right now :D) is over.

Forget that nonsense...REAL men don't pout. :cry: :drink: :drunk: :puke: :Flush:

hehehehehehe! :lol:

-snip- :lol: :megalol: :rotflmao: Trying to read those forums with babelfish is always a good laugh. Google translate isn't much better but it doesn't stick phonetically spelled Russian words in brackets like the fish does. "Thanks ED to you enormous" ^^^^ I was worried about this chap's response since the poor translation made it sound very negative, but I breathed a sigh of relief when I read this at the end. :smilewink:

K, now you've tempted me. I never thought about the aspect of having an English manual to go off of while using the Russian cockpit. :joystick: In fact, this is what I assumed we would see anyway. The fact that the cockpit seems to be almost totally English-affied in Wags's PNs is really amazing. But it is an advantange I did not count on having...

You know...now that BS is "done" (they still have work to do for the Western version), I'm surprised that there hasn't been a flood of people talking about the possible patch.

There are some files in your LOMAC folder that allow you to tweak all sorts of things, and I know for a fact one of them has to do with your maxe view angle. I wish I could provide more info than this. I can tell you that LoCFG (you can get this from Lockonfiles.com) gives you the ability to tweak these figures without messing with those files. Since my info isn't as great as I'm sure others will provide, just consider this a bump. :smilewink:

Those things kick ass! I hope you guys make MiG-29 and F-15 ones eventually! ;) :D

There was a thread some time back that gave some info on the weapons available in BS for the Ka-50. That might give you some answers. :)

Pretty sure only one set of pylons is equipped for the Vikhr.

Awesome stuff! Thats going to be great fun planning attacks like that on the fly. :joystick: I have a question about it the AI wing men. Can you give them any suggestions about what altitude to ingress at? They looked like they did pretty well in the PN by themselves though.

Good advice here, thank you! :) EDIT: any tips for finding older stuff...as in stuff no longer manufactured?

No thanks. I'll continue to approach this sim using whatever information I can find. Yes, the tools are not modeled as accurately as they could be. However, you will find that most of the inaccuracy comes from the player, not the sim. Employment and tactics are just as important than whatever the sim has going on under the hood. I could fly my MiG-29S with 4 R-77s at 40,000 feet, super-cruising around mad-dogging missiles. But I don't. I fly with a hard cap of about 25,000 feet and will make missions with enemy aircraft well above that. I avoid relying on my look-down capability and instead force myself to fight from a look-up position. I limit myself to 2 R-27s and 4 R-73s, even in the MiG-29S. Why? Because I really don't believe R-77s on Fulcrums would be all that common. It seems far more likely that a regular front-line Fulcrum would be armed with more common weaponry. The only reason I fly the MiG-29S is that, to my understanding, even the A should have some sort of GCI datalink but it does not. I do tend to use AWACS as a surrogate for GCI OR I set up a quick intercept where it is assumed GCI has already vectored me to the bandit and his range and altitude are known. I put this in the mission description. I also limit myself to relatively short range missions, either DCA or maybe a very quick and crude CAS mission, limited by the lack of precision weapons. Either way, its a simulation of a defensive mission. In order to limit the effectiveness of the beriosa, I like to saturate the mission with radar emitting units. Friendly and enemy EWR, AWACS, SAMs, CAP aircraft not in the mission area, etc. I do the best I can with what I have. :) There's a great deal of things I have no idea about, but I do my best to use the fighter for what it was designed to do. Some things are beyond my control, but you can do a lot with a little bit of thought. I bring up the Fulcrum because it seems to be, by far, the easiest Russian fighter to find info on. It also seems to be the easiest to abuse unrealistically. ;) I have other "templates" I follow with the Su-27. I have some with F-15C as well.

Wha...? :huh: Now I agree, this logically makes sense, but whenever something from the manufacturer gets cited, you have those who will give you the "brochure" retort: "Did you get that from a brochure?" The implication being that the manufacturer will embelish upon the good features and not address the bad ones. On the surface this is a weak argument, but I'll be damned if it hasn't made me stop and think. Its easy to be pesimistic and think that the manufacturer is just saying what General Joe Blow wants to hear. And some of the past procurement practices, in the US military at least, don't exactly make that unreasonable. Now, regardless of whatever people say, that is a good tip. Thank you. Indeed. Let me be more specific though, because I don't want you to think I'm taking this stuff on face value. Often times the serious discussions between people who claim to be this or that are the only thing that prompt finding more information. Ideas are often not immaculately conceived. I know you're very knowledgable about stuff like this, and this is the probably the product of active research. You wanted to know something, so you went out, researched and found out. This often not the case for me. I have no claim of expertise. Sometimes I will try to hunt something down, but its usually prompted from a counter argument or some bit of info provided about something I though I already had a good understanding of. Call it "passive research!" :D I hesitate to even call it "research" really...its just reading stuff. :P The only thing I can honestly say I researched in my free time was how to build myself a PC.

I was half kidding. It was GG's comment about them adding "ridiculous praise" to the R-73. BS runs downhill both ways to be sure, and each side has its fan boys, but if you made a cursory search for info on Russian kit, you could come away very misinformed. You have to get to some fairly serious discussions (well beyond the casual person's interest) between experts, pilots, and those with first hand knowledge before you get a clear picture. Hell, even then I have some doubts about the info given and reserve judgement. In the mean time, the lay person buys a Yefim Gordon book because 23 out of 23 people gave it 5 stars on amazon.com. (I am guilty of this. I still like those books though despite the perceived bias. Good info on development and Mr. Gordon is a prolific photographer with amazing access to OKB photos and videos). Someone else might read YouTube comments, or find a website with a biased Australian chap who sounds like he's quoting missile ranges from the Flanker 2.0 encyclopedia. Hell, somone could look at the LOMAC encyclopedia and not go any further!! Maybe we really are looking in different places? I don't really go actively seeking information on Western hardware as much because what I really am interested in is how the Soviets used their kit. I guess I perceive Western info to be easier to come by. I mean, we have an Eagle driver on this board. Where's our MiG pilot who served in the VVS during the Cold War? Do we have anyone active in the Russian military who can comment on any of this? We know what US brevity code is. What about Soviet/Russian brevity code? Did the Soviets and do the Russians use something like an overhead break to land, or do they just go straight in? How reliant were they REALLY on GCI? How good were the GCI controllers? "Speed is life"? Then why make your planes work so well at slow speeds and high alpha? I'm like those guys who are historical reenactors. I can dress up in Roman armor or a Confederate uniform and I can carry around a gladius or musket. All of it is meaningless if I'm not employing those tools they way they were intended. :)

You bet! Thats why I ask! :smilewink:

Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevity_code Along with some other good info, you will find the altitude rangers for the various AWACS calls (Very high, High, Medium, etc.)

Like 76.8% of the internet, wikipedia is officially sponsored by Sukhoi, Mikoyan, and Vympel! :lol: I kinda figured it was politics, I just didn't want to believe it.

Bumping this one to keep it alive and in the public consciousness. :D I'm really looking forward to this one.