DirtySanchez

Now THIS video does it for me. Well done. Also nice to hear a broader range of Jester's vocabulary. I still feel like he's on 11 sometimes though. I'd dial him back to about a 7.

We've wandered a fair way from the point. It was never my intent to litigate the issue. I disagree that the brevity has changed appreciably in the past 30 years. Occassionally individual terms are added and removed as the landscape changes (fielding of LINK-16, synchronization with NATO brevity, etc). But the vast majority of terms remain unchanged. MUD and SPIKE are two completely unrelated terms incorrectly paired together and popularized in Falcon 3 or 4 back in the 90s. A whole generation of armchair fighter pilots grew up thinking it's correct, but it's not. Honestly, I made my comments in passing. I'm not here on a crusade.

Yes, I agree. It's a matter of personal preference. I stated my personal preference and was attacked (albeit passive aggressively) for it. I'm no snowflake so my feelings aren't hurt, but I thought I'd point out the double standard. I respect your opinion and I suspect a great many people/customers agree with you. For the record, "MUD SPIKE" is demonstrably incorrect.

Sorry I ruffled your knickers. Having been a flight sim enthusiast and developer for more than 30 years, I dont need any help recognizing the significance of HB's accomplishment. It literally goes without saying. That doesnt make it immune from constructive criticism, however. My constructive criticism is: 1) Brevity could be improved. 2) The tone (angst) apparent in the voice-over feels a bit arcade-like to my ear. A stark contrast to the fidelity and professionalism exhibited by the rest of the product. I dont "expect perfection", nor did I "hammer down" on anyone or anything. I said this particular video didn't do it for me. I also fail to see how a comment like mine could possibly have contributed to an unrealistic expectation regarding a release date...where did that come from? I already bought the Tomcat and I plan on enjoying it, minor flaws and all. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you were a little less hyperbolic when attacking people for not sharing your opinion.

Hmmm. I've been pretty excited about the Tomcat, but this video didn't do it for me. Can't win them all, I guess... I'm a bit bothered by the poor brevity showcased by the AI RIO; "Mud Spike"? The redundant "hot" aspect calls for SAMs. That and the fact that he sounds like it's his first combat mission ever. I guess my preference would be for a more poised crewmate. Hopefully we'll see some more realistic and composed videos soon.

In the real world, it is possible to identify the caliber of AAA shooting at you based on a number of characteristics including tracer color, the number of tracers in a salvo, and the burst/smoke color. 23mm is distinguishable from 57mm which is distinguishable from 85 or 100mm.

This has been a feature for years. Each airport has a default "preferred" runway when winds are calm. If the wind is set to create a tailwind greater than about 10 knots on this runway, the reciprocal runway will become active and even the ILS (if equipped) will switch ends. There are some airports, such as Batumi which do not switch (as per the real world) because of high terrain.

If ED would fix the unrealistic G-excursions that happen when rolling on the ground, it would probably prevent the only real criticism I have: the excessive wing flex during taxi (even with the wings swept).

OT: In some parts of the flying world - primarily the parts which dont have ejection seats - painstaking systems knowledge is sometimes all that separates the good from the dead. There is no detail too small to tuck away in the back of your mind for that unlikely day when you have cascading failures and dwindling options. But then, maybe things are different if you're "flying" from the inside of a CONEX container at 0ft and 0kts...

There's no thrust reduction approaching Mach 1.23. The FADEC/DEEC/EEC/whatever it's called in the Hornet prevents the engine from operating below MIL when faster than Mach 1.23. Big difference. As Eddie already explained, this protects the engine from compressor stalls, surges, and flameouts that would likely occur if the engine were allowed to decelerate under those conditions. The jet will still decelerate at MIL, and once slower than the threshold the engine will respond to throttle positions below MIL.

It's a perfectly valid point of view that effort might be better allocated to "finishing" major related systems as opposed to completing unrelated systems in a (seemingly) random order. I don't know why such an opinion is so controversial. I, too, would prefer devs focus on either A2A or A2G related systems. The order isn't important to me, but it would be my preference to have either a fully working A2A or a fully working A2G solution as opposed to having both in an incomplete state. ETA: I actually like getting individual systems added every few weeks. It makes familiarization easier, allows consolidation of learning, and is not entirely unlike real acquisition programs where planned functionality is added over time. I'm looking at you, F-35.