Beaker_VBA

yeah, some of the canopy coating is worn off. Probably intentionally.

I've been looking for that video everywhere, and I can't find it! Do you know where I can?

Thanks! :beer: I have a tendency to think of it as a continuation because I don't know what's going on under the hood. If you asked Webster, he'd call it a continuation. If you asked a coder, they'd tell you it's a whole new animal. :thumbup:

News media flight?

Joe, he's implying that DCS is not LockOn. DCS is the continuation of LockOn. Saying that there is a F-16 Charlie module for LockOn is just miss-spoken. There HAS been work towards a Viper module for DCS, and I'm sure you've seen the screenshots. GGTharos did not directly answer the question, he just clarified the terminology. And that's his prerogative. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The F4 devs don't need to be a part of childish competitive taunts. They are working with a 1997, DX7, and corrupted database simulator. I hope you can understand that you are comparing apples and oranges. These guys are working for free on a dinosaur of a simulator, and you're comparing the very latest technology to their hobby? What they have achieved is no less than miraculous. Do NOT mock it. Leave the "community bias" at the forum door.

The HUD in h00t74's isn't representative of the current cockpit setup. It looks like it's either just part of that simulator setup, or an older (test) Block.

If that pilot were smarter, teknetinium, he would have maneuvered out of plane and/or extended out of reach as you sold your energy to close aspect. And let's be careful when we use LockOn for examples. ;)

Totally. As technology progresses, the line between angles and energy fighters are being blurred. Aircraft like the Su-35 and F-22 can perform incredibly well on both ends of the spectrum. I'm interested to see where aircraft designed to provide incredible SA, like the F-35, tend to take the fight. It doesn't appear to be a turner. :(

Nobody said that, "mikoyan," but I suppose it's close to on-topic. Yes, the MiG-29 is superior to the F-15 in almost every manner, WVR. Thrust to weight goes to the MiG-29 by a small margin, something like 0.01. Yes, everything you said is true, but you're missing the point, again, and dragging me off topic. (Again!) The point is, the USE of high-AOA maneuvering is generally in desperation. A good pilot is not going to let you just haul around without paying for it. The pilot who plays defense is about to be in a bad way.

Well now I'm lost, but I thought you were replying to my post.

Bazar/Effects. I suggest you back up those two folders first, in case you prefer the old clouds. Why you would I can't imagine. ;)

Yes, they can attain higher AOA. No, they don't have to use it. But an aircraft designed for low-speed and high AOA maneuvering is generally most effective in that regime, and not in a high speed/energy fight of rate. The Stones will tell you... you can't always get what you want. Thrust vectoring is revolutionary in that it allows aircraft designed for high turn rate capabilities to employ a small radius at high AOA should they need it. In the classic eagle-vs-flanker argument, the Eagle's higher corner (not to mention excellent excess power) allow him a greater degree of freedom in maneuvering, especially in the vertical. Of course! Nobody's saying otherwise. The crux of the matter lies in WHEN and WHERE the application of high-AOA/low speed maneuvering becomes effective. I'll leave it to the Raptor community.

That is the sad thing isn't it. I've said nothing negative about high-AOA capabilities. They're fantastic, they're hugely useful. But only at the proper time, and it so happens that the proper time is usually late in the fight. As we move into the future, there will likely be no "late in the fight." ... Yes to GGTharos, no to Teknetinium. The point here is the viability of low airspeed maneuvering. Regardless of whether or not you use it. If you don't, what's the point? For those who don't understand what I mean: Just because you can achieve high AOA units doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. Imagine a rabbit running in circles around a snapping turtle who can't move forward... The turtle has an awful lot of trouble turning around in place. The rabbit is moving so fast around the turtle that he stays away from the turtle's mouth. If the turtle was able to turn around in place as fast as the rabbit, chances are the rabbit would just jump over the turtle. (Maneuver in the vertical) I know I'll get blasted for saying this... but it appears to me that Eastern proponents on the internet often do a poor job of presenting their argument logically. Especially on YouTube, the sewer of the internet... :lol:

Hey crazysundog, what are your specs?

Awesome! Great stuff Mizzy, you're the bomb!

The only problem with LOFC in the dark is that it's not very... dark! Still, lots of fun. IR Mavericks, dude! ;)

Rhen- I'll rep you when I can for making the first intelligent and informed post in this topic. There is no East/West bias in the air, only winners and losers. :) Pound for pound, the F-22 seems to be the most deadly aircraft out there. But any aircraft not flown in its deadliest envelope is ineffective. Yeah, teknetinium, most WVR fights will go to low-speed (.: high AOA) maneuvering if allowed. The key here is that pilots have a choice to trust their rate, or spend their airspeed on angles. A smart pilot in an aircraft that CAN out-rate, will choose to out-rate. The idea behind TVN in the Raptor is creating an all-around air dominance platform. If the need arises, it's there. A good pilot won't go there unless he absolutely must, and in that situation, the USAF has prepared him well. This is why I get so worked up over internet battles about who can perform a fancier stall. There's so much obsession with thrust vectoring and post-stall maneuvering. The aircraft is built around the pilot, not the engine nozzles. Where I'm going, stalling is a sin! :lol:

An aircraft that does not stall this way is not "ill-designed." That's a horribly biased and uniformed comment. Hopefully a sarcastic one. Fancy stalls are hardly necessary to produce a lethal killer. An aircraft operated by almost 50 countries for this long could hardly be described as "ill-designed." I'm a little disappointed with the quality of discussion you nay-sayers are putting up. You tell someone they're a fanboy, then turn and act the same! Get real, DarkWanderer.

Probably glued on for effect. :D Give the Western analysts something to shuffle papers over.

Via CodeOne Magazine:

Saints! Sweet!

IRL you'd have a hell of a time if there were winds aloft, Grimes. ;)

Count on it. :thumbup:

Nice flying, well done! Thanks for sharing. :thumbup: