CE_Mikemonster

I have a Yuraku 24" budget monitor, but with a P-MVA panel (I think - will edit when I look it up EDIT: it is P-MVA ). Buying a new monitor is a PIA to research. When reading reviews remember to take into account that when people buy them it is nearly always as an upgrade, so their reviews WILL be sky-high! I would have given mine 9/10 for the first three months following purchase. Now i'd give it 6/10 (but i'm content, and it's High Def). Mine has a slight trail on the mouse cursor when on dark surfaces (but I have to concentrate to see it), and when playing rental DVD's the dark patches blur as close-up faces move, making it almost unwatchable for me (gf probs doesn't notice!). For some reason Band of Brothers on DVD didn't have any noticaeable problems, but I was watching it a few days after receiving the monitor, so possibly I didn't notice (which says it all really - what matters is YOUR perception, DON'T EVER look for faults or you'll find them!!!). I deliberately spent £200 on something that wasn't a TN panel, based on reviews about colour quality and viewing angles, but have come to realise that a TN panel PROBABLY would have suited my needs better (the occasonal film when our old TV isn't happy, and flight simming). I would like to point out I have NEVER owned another large LCD screen to compare this one to apart from a budget one that came with a PC World budget PC package. This was TN and it did have bad vertical viewing angles but not such that you couldn't use it for films occasionally. If all you'll do is sit in front of it though, i'd get a high quality TN until current technology advances. Need to rush off with the gf so i'll end it there. I've been rushing so apologies for too many caps/bad grammar!

I'm not even gonna ask how you found this bud. Quite suprising in Oregon really, I had a look at the Wiki entry (firstly to see where it was!), and no mention of it - it has a 75% Christian population (but is the 4th least Christian state, behind Colarado, Washington and Vermont). Looks chilly to be nude there!

Good find. 20 Quid! Hehehe

Yeah well noticed mate, was hoping that would slip under the radar.. ;) +1 rep On the other hand though, there are only what, 12 Ka-50's? (in the model that we fly - and not many of different models). I'm sure the only reason these have been retained is to justify building them. Basically they are combat prototypes lol

I am not so much presenting information as I am trying to present logic Voland. I am not experienced in aircraft maintenance and i'm certain that you and many others on this site know a huge amount more than me on the specifics of systems, information sources, doctrines and staticstics. Unfortunately it seems though that when such people get their heads together the debate can end up taking so many twists and turns that the end subect where one person is right has nothing to do with the original subject of the debate! (the battle-rifle example ;)) It seems, when you get right down to the source of this debate, that the debate is over the following subject: 'NATO have aircraft requiring an advanced airbase infrastructure when in exterme cold weather, and Russia have aircraft that as a bonus do not need this.' My post above were linked to this rather than as a reply to anybody else's statements. With the airbase infrastructure behind them that they were designed for, i'm certain that NATO aircraft can sustain the same sortie rates as Russian aircraft. I'm basing my assumptions on that if they could not it would be a complete failure of design for the manufacturers. Swedish aircraft operate in such 'extreme cold' conditions for example, and Norway operate the F-16 in the same climate. I'm sure that all US aircraft in Alaska are mission capable - if they were not I doubt that they'd be stationed there. I possibly used the word 'strategic' here incorrectly. What I meant is that the overall system for supporting the Air Force allows for better airbases in NATO bloc countries. I'm basing this on the fact that as you have mentioned most front line combat NATO aircraft are not designed for operating from dirt-strips or public highways. To me it seems that if Western aircraft need heated hangars it means they have components or systems that are not 'weather proofed' or cannot cope with repeated starts in extreme cold. If Russian aircraft are capable of this either new materials must have been added to provide this capability, or new systems must have been added to the aircraft itself to allow it to carry out some of the functions provided externally in Western hangars. In either case there has been a compromise that will negatively affect the aircraft in some way. I'm not disputing your or anyone elses knowledge here mate, respect to everyone! :)

It doesn't mention British or French pilots! Not as if there was an extensive air war prior to 1917 though.. obviously. The war had hardly started! :) Ahem, I forget my manners lol. The air combat in the video looked amazing, simple, and very fun. I'd love to land a Sopwith Camel on a dirt strip though. Biggles, my hero! (childrens books by Capt WE Johns) :(

I am fairly interested in the subject, and had heard of 'Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat', but not the other one. I'll Amazon it (thanks!). I respect the sources, just meant it wasn't definate. I mentioned the maintenance on account of the US not providing spare parts following the Revolution (though I believe parts were sourced from middle-men).

Ahhh I did wonder, cheers. @ Mithandra, I wouldn't worry about your connection bud, I only had a 2MB connection when I d/l. Get Free Download Manager (so you can Stop or Resume the download when you feel like it) and leave the PC on overnight maybe? Only a quick-start manual will be available with the English DVD release - most of us already flying are waiting for the full manual that will be available for purchase seperately :)

Sea Harrier FRS.2 ('SHar') (to be back on topic) Though really it's a modern single seat carrierborne all weather fighter/bomber - sorry to disappoint..! They would indeed seem to be coming out of nowhere if you hadn't seen the F-14's radar on your RWR (as far as i'm aware). Yup, it'll be detected when it comes down from the stratosphere - and if you can time it right i'm sure it can be relitively easily defeated by a fighter (after they crap themselves). Now shake hands :) (jk hehe) No definate concrete info on Iranian AF use of Tomcats, but a lot interesting snippets. And of course all those accounts of Iraqi pilots running away when they were bugged by it's radar (Edit: in Desert Storm -- "Aaaaargh!!!! Well maintained big-dogs!")

mate, use the search button to find threads like this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35529&highlight=campaign+vista

Has the Russian version been released on cd yet? Not sure about 1 or 2 :( 3) Yes, but in the manual it refers to the Russian switch symbology (rather than the new English cockpit switch labels). The English pit was made by a Beta tester, it wasn't planned by ED. Not a problem, possibly a minor irritation (very minor).

Harald Huf, legend lol

Erm.. Is Georgia big enough for a deep-strike?

Check the www.freefalcon.com/forum site if you want a F15-E and want the dynamic battlefield experience without necessarilly having every single switch modelled. I have no idea if it's modelled to the same level as some of the other planes, but you stand a very good chance. I'm not trying to advertise, i'm just surprised it doesn't seem to have been mentioned (pardon me if it has! =S ). LMAO

Yeah lol, I had to watch mine drop from ~750kb/s [est. 24 mins] to 53.4kb/s [4hrs+] lol

Just out of interest, how was everyone's download? I'm stuck on under 60Kb/s with every single dl link. (for the first 400MB though it was up to ~750kb/s :)) But yeah, AF if you play multiplayer, everything else is another Falcon world tbh, a lot more functionality (most of it very convincing, some of it rough around the edges).

I'm DLing now, i'll edit this post when I install and run it. I can't play OF because my HD3850 isn't supported.

You're right, I very much doubt that's a Maverick, all I mean is that there is such thing as 'overkill' lol. Heavens knows what the blast of a Mav would do in the street - i'm sure that even 'just' the explosion of the missiles in the vid smashed a few windows and hurt some ears.

Back to an earlier subject, when you see this vid you'll realise why the Israelis were diappointed at Mavericks destructive capability.. (Cheers for link nscode)

Hahaha fair enough, no ©nscode 2009 then lol. Just didn't want to take credit for your findings hehe

Yeah that is the most important. I also mean though that even if you did try to protect it with more armour that you'd have to compensate a helluva lot for the obvious flaw that is the sheer unavoidable flatness of the turret roof (I don't see how you could slope it like the front of the hull for instance).

Great work MBot! Hit the target dead on with that one. I couldn't help thinking it would make the game really interesting, with some front-lines based on this instead of just a line of units. There's infantry - and there's dug-in, well prepared infantry (with supporting arms such as MANPADS). They wouldn't even have to fire, for instance I thought that camouflaged hides could simulate FAC or Artillery Observers - you could link to a trigger for when it's destroyed for less accurate incoming? (Obviously realism would be relative to the visibility of the model.) I like the pillboxes in DCS, but a comprehensive suite of earthworks could possibly increase the feeling of a battlefield. Some could be empty, some could have AK or RPG? I'm not a modder, i'm not moaning about the current way of doing things, and I have no qualifications in the fields required, just wondered.. ## strokes chin ## :)

Very good link, thanks bud. Extremely debatable use of that sort of weaponry (which we won't debate!), but undeniably it is good to have the choice :) I was thinking in the wrong frame of mind - this is exactly the reason 'fire and forget only' is not a great idea sometimes. For instance I can fully imagine the same thing happening if a Brimstone was launched at a pickup in Afghanistan. Thanks for teaching me :thumbup: EDIT: Oh btw can I copy the link into another thread on the Israeli's being 'disappointed' at the enormous destructive power of the Maverick? Textbook example of why bigger is not always better..

Fair one, thanks for the info. I thought when the manual was updated (for buying in physical form), that it'd all be in English to match the English cockpit switches. No big deal for me, never knew that about the English pit!

I know it's a big deal to discuss, but by doing so the attention of the thread is being diverted from finding out about the AI. It's a very valid discussion, but please can everyone discussing it move it to the Other Sims part of the forums?