lemoen

So many pages of dick swinging. Most of you are almost right or completely right but suck at explaining, or just wrong. The aircraft weathervanes into the wind. Of course it does, else it wouldn't be going where you wanted it to go. BigDuke, your explanation is not quite correct, however, in general you are right (almost). Whether a plane weathervanes into the crosswind has nothing to do with being on the ground or in the air, it has to to with airflow along the axis parallel to its wings. When it is on the ground or have just taken off, if there is air flowing in that direction, the nose is pushed into the wind and the centre of gravity of the plane is accelerated in the direction of the wind (because the aerodynamic stability of the plane requires the nose to point into airflow.). However, once the plane's CoG's velocity component in the direction of the wind is equal to the windspeed, this rotational force stops turning the plane. So, I think you guys are arguing just for the sake of it and some of you are using rules of thumb approximation (plane on ground, plane in air) to explain physics and most aren't working it out from first principles.

They may have tweaked what the different settings mean again. Also, did you clear your shader cache?

I wouldn't worry about it. Just replace the drive when it fails and never ever have your important documents only on physical drives, keep them in the cloud and never worry about backups again.

Someone bring a JTAC

Well, yes and no, since it is an open alpha it is up to us to report things that are broken, needs optimizing, or give feedback as to how they can make our user experience better. Else, there is no reason to have an open alpha like this. We're effectively helping them test. There are so many more of us than there are devs in ED, that a lot of the things we experience they probably never have or will, unless we tell them about it. So telling people "something something, its an alpha" is not useful. It is there so we can give feedback.

You have a really fast machine. My FPS is decent too but I too have a 4.7GHz CPU and a 1070 8GB . On 1.5 I can run on triple 1080p monitors and on 2.1 I can only do 1 of them, else the framerate goes bye bye. I'll try to see tonight what the deal is but I think there are some things in the new version that are pretty hard on GPUs

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3169742&postcount=92

Seconded. It feel stuttery because the framerate changes. Use vsync so that it is limited to 60 and it really should appear very very smooth.

Why tomorrow, update should be here today, no?

I use CH sticks and throttle. I didn't install the CH software, everything works the way it should. Not sure what the CH software adds?

Everyone has the TF-51, so everyone can do recon and take fuel to bases. Seems pretty fair.

Unlike those two posers, this guy was real and the top-scoring Tomcat Ace #RedCat

The F14 *should* be seen as a red aircraft and it *should* go to red only, as a Persian Cat, on this server at least. Maybe even give the F14 its AIM54 and then remove Mirage from Red. Details aside, putting an aircraft like that on one side only will motivate more people to sign up on that side. I'm all for totally asymmetric forces.

I think it is there. Are you following the correct landing procedures with glide slope @ 14º and no flare?

The shilkas definitely attack me when I get too close in a huey and then I'm flying quite low (even landed). If they start in state green then you may be OK, state red, and they shoot first and don't ask any questions.

They're not all dead after the first run?;)

Thanks for the tf51! One small detail. One can deploy kub sites with it. Not sure if intended or not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One would think so...

Flanker also has much higher thrust to weight ratio.

There are bombs but 1. Spread out targets mean you drop 8 or 16 bombs and maybe hit 1 thing. 2. If there's a Shilka/Strela in state Red you will die. The new fuel bases are a bit easier to hit but spread out and lack of splash damage means that again, precision or cluster weaponry is needed. Maybe this is just how things are and we should deal with it. Flying a Viggen with mavs 400km through enemy lines to destroy 4 targets that will respawn within an hour is hardly worth the risk. If they are important targets that helps your team (SA3 radar, base fuel bunkers etc) then that's a different matter.

YES PLEASE!! Mr Mustang's Delivery Service™ I for one would fly that.

OK maybe, in a shot for shot match. Either way, I have a feeling that the WWII armour is either way too strong or the modern armour is way too weak.

Clearly the WWII tanks shouldn't be able to fight with much success against modern tanks. In fact, a BMP should probably be a much more capable 'tank' than a Tiger II. We could have tank deathmatch with every tank vs some of the WWII units, see which is best :-)

This seems like a bug. We shouldn't have to 'think laterally' to work around bugs. That's insane.

It is possible but I believe it completely annihilates the performance of the server. Even for fairly small groups moving.