sobek

Did you check if the governor interfered in any way with your power setting, i.e. did the EGT change when you transitioned out of ground effect?

With a lot of simplification, power is force times distance divided by time. So since for a higher speed, force has to increase, you need even more than 3x the power to achieve 3x the vertical velocity. Of course this is highly theoretical because IRL you need power to stay in a hover. The increase in power needed to start climbing a little is rather small compared to what is already needed to stay in a hover. However, 3 times the force would mean a lot more terminal vertical velocity (which is too complicated to calculate on a coaster, a little out of scope for now), so that would mean a *much* greater increase in power. Still, this is all starting to get pretty OT...

The damage depiction doesn't always convey well where a hit has happened. Unfortunately the visual part of the damage model needs an overhaul.

The updater supports resuming just fine.

Say what now?

Probably, yes. But saying that, coming from a hover, it trippled you'd be left with a rocket, not a helicopter... ;) What would be interesting from the point of testing: What happens when the sink rate is arrested with additional collective? Does it take the additional collective to remain in a hover? When you start climbing, do you suddenly need less collective to remain in a hover? Suppose the sink rate is low enough for touch down without damage, does the helicopter become airborne once again after touching down? Does it remain in a hover?

That would be the climb rate, the vertical component of the airframe velocity. Lift is a force. :smartass::music_whistling:

Nobody said that lift did double or tripple. Could be that the ground effect is less pronounced in the dual rotor configuration.

So that makes it 30 copies a month, optimistically speaking... or more... or less. So yeah, pretty much tealeaves.

And this assessment is based on what? Tealeaves? :)

But rotor area isn't. Also, the Ka-50 weighs between 2-5 times as much.

Not particularly free unless you use FOSS, but it is called operating system. ;)

The focus is and has been NTTR. It was explicitly stated that making the city true to life with landmarks and whatnot is out of scope. If you find *grave* errors, i'm sure the'll have a look, but minor landmarks probably don't even scratch the bottom of their todo list.

With FADEC and better engine instrumentation, the MBTF should be good enough to make up for the redundancy. We'll see how that works out.

Those seeds only grow in the hearts of flight sim enthusiasts. :P

Well the F-16A can't do what the F-18A can do either. That is a thing of airframe design, not of the FCS.

Like the F-117? I'm not sure that much has changed in FCSs since the F-16 got the digital FLCS. Some evolutionary development, sure, more processing power as well, but not the revolution that you make it sound like. FBW control of unstable airframes was probably quite mature in the 80ies, definately so at the time that TVS started to pop up. Which the unstable 4th gen fighters are already capable of. I do agree however that TV appears to be, in the grand scheme of all things cost/benefit, a gimmick, since it makes the plane more costly to maintain (just look at the history of russian TV systems, at least when they came up they seemed to be horrible to maintain, i doubt that it wasn't/isn't a problem for western counterparts).

Sorry but that is outrageously wrong. Unstable airframes where there long before the advent of TV. The F-16 and Su-27 are both examples of this and they are around way longer than TV is.

1.5 already encompasses the new engine. Any build that contains Nevada *and* Caucasus will most likely have a version number >= 2.0.

That's easier said than done with regard to military equipment. What would you quote as source for that part of information? Hours upon hours of youtube videos, none of which show the AH-64 employing Mavericks in routine service? That's not how it works.

Not with regard to military technology. It may have been tested, but it is *very* questionable that it is cleared for standard operations.

Technically speaking, casualties aren't cheap either. Doubtful. The Hellfire weighs in at a little less than 50kg. The light Maverick types weigh over 200kg. That means more than 4 times the loadout asymmetry when one is fired. Even if that does not put the Apache on the edge of controlled flight (which i doubt), instead of 8 Hellfires you can only load 2 Maverick missiles.

Officially, there's been no mention of any improvements coming from the move from T3 to T4 for the caucasus map.

If only we could read russian source code. :P:)

Nope. The A-10 has no autotrim, the F-16 FBW does incorporate that, plus the F-16 engine has less input lag. That and that BMS used to have a simplified FM when connected contributed to that myth. I don't know how it is now.