Case

Personally I hardly ever use their aiming capability. I just use them in tandem with the onboard cannon to fire all of them in a dive.

My favourite loadout by far is the following: 2xSPPU 2xKh-25ML 4xRBK-250 The Kh-25ML's are used for SHORAD (Avengers and Vulcans mostly) and by working together with a wingman it is easy to have them give away their positions. The clusters are ideal to attack (moving) columns or destroy ships, while the gunpods are a must to mop up any target that remains. It wreaks havoc on the lighter artillery and APC/IFV units, whereas, if used appropriately, it can destroy a main-battle tank in a single pass.

I can vividly remember my struggles when I started flying the Su-25T. The main problem is that of pilot overload, trying to keep the aircraft flying, while operating the Shkval to target units and fire and track the Vikhr's. I would suggest you instead start off with the Su-25A. Because it lacks the Shkval you are forced to first get experience with the AFM by flying the aircraft and using the targeting of bombs and rockets. Once you have that mastered, try out the laser guided weapons on the Su-25A (Kh-25ML, S-25L, Kh-29L), and only then start with the Su-25T.

You and your everlasting tendency to misread anything anyone says... :dontgetit:

Ares was supposed to take astronauts, and it was designed for that. However, I always wondered if Atlas and/or Delta rockets could not be redesigned to get human rated. I would be very surprised if they'd do that, but I'd love to see the Shuttle around for much longer. My reasoning against it is that parts of the Shuttle program have been dismantled (like LC-39B), pilots are no longer trained, money is spent elsewhere and that the remaining Shuttle flights are only used to get the last pieces to the ISS. After that, NASA can save 2 billion per launch and spend it on buying seats on Soyuz rockets, developing existing technology and get the ISS going.

Obama is not forcing anyone to support the Shuttle for longer... The EELV program has given the US Delta and Atlas which have proven themselves already, there is no need for Ares rockets.

To be honest, the Space Shuttle program hasn't delivered what it was designed for back in the 70's. The program would only be worthwhile if Shuttles could be launched on at least a monthly basis, a thing that never materialized. Furthermore, the International Space Station would be doing science with at least a 6 person crew, something that did not happen until a year ago. Until that time, all astronauts on board were too busy keeping the station alive. On the other hand, the Constellation program wasn't supported the way it should to make it successful. All these things ate up the NASA budget on scientific missions. Scientific satellites already in space and doing excellent science had their budget cut to or even missions got ended due to budget constraints. Don't get me wrong, human spaceflight is great, but I believe NASA was using the wrong tools for it. The problem is not Obama cancelling the Constellation program, but previous presidencies not thinking of the future earlier.

OMG... talk about senseless threads... :yawn: Only if you start a bet this thread might have some use.

Check this thread for a solution: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=21878

What altitudes are you flying at? I'm not sure what ships you are up against, but generally it helps to be higher, as you will decrease the amount of fog you will be looking through, as well as increasing the ranges of your missiles.

If I'm not mistaken this video was also distributed on the Su-27 Flanker 1.5 Squadron Commander CD back in 1997 :D But cool Su-27 video indeed!

It is. It is a Space Shuttle launch.

Congrats! Have a good one!

The stats page has reset to March. The results from February can be selected from the drop down box.

This is exactly one of the things a stats page can do for pilots, making them think about how they fly and what they want to achieve.

Maybe we should start the Guinness Book of Records for Lock On Oddities!

Right now the stats page is working solely with the mp_log, but for FC2.0 I would be very interested in using more data for stats and other projects. I might look into the LEAVU code at some point.

Would that socket talk to a program running on the game server, or would the data be exported over a network to a program running on a different machine?

Well, we have been pushing a 'write to log' trigger action, which could be used here. So if the trigger is tripped and the player is within a zone around an airbase, he landed on the airbase and you can write that to a log. If he landed on a round outside the zone then you can write out that he landed on a road and don't give him the bonus points (perhaps even give him a penalty for losing an AC, or even explode him upon landing).

Interesting concept. I'm sure the 51st would be willing to join.

In FC1.12 landing on roads is not really such a big problem, because with the airbase scripts in LRM they can land but can not take off. I agree it might be good to have a fix for this for FC2.0, and the landing trigger is indeed a good way of doing it.

This has been on my 'todo' list for quite some time, but I have not gotten around to implement it yet. Anyone with basic MySQL and PHP knowledge is welcome to try and implement it. I can prove the scripts and a dump of the database.

Indeed, it is very much that situation. In the 51st we aimed to design a scoring system that would allow the skills of fighters to be compared to that of strikers. You could indeed argue that A2A kills are overrated compared to A2G kills, given that no true 'striker only pilot' made it into the top 10 of the overall stats. However, it should be reminded that it is indeed like shooting fish in a barrel, as there is no human element working against you. in fact, the strikers can even learn the missions in rotation and improve their tactics to minimize their risk and maximize their kills. With that in mind I would say the scoring system is very reasonable.

We have something like that on the 51st stats page: http://www.51st.org/stats/aces.php?pid=09all. I will try to implement it on the common stats page as well.

Can you elaborate your point? What I see is that the top three pilots each have approximately the same flight hours and each has the approximately the same points. Only one of them scored the points completely from A2A kills, where as the other two have half the points from A2A kills and half from A2G kills. They also have half the number of A2A kills compared to the pilot with only A2A kills. To me this shows that we made the right choice in weighing an A2A kill to A2G kills. However, if you have suggestions to improve it, please let us know!