Total

During the shut down, you forgot the Hyrdaulics/EKRAN switch Even at that - awesome :D

Well, if ED needs any assistance in this area, I'll supply what info I know is declassified. If they can show me something else has been declassified, then I can go in depth on that too :D It looks like what's modeled into FC is simple barrage jamming instead of emitter specific jamming.

IRL - ECM coming in on (example) a bearing of 010 will impede your ability to see any other contacts clearly on that bearing. It's a tactic commonly used when an aircraft like the EA-6B is flying above and behind a group of strike aircraft heading which are headed into a hostile zone. The EA-6B will employ ECM on the hostile targeting radar and mask the strike group which is on the same bearing as the EA-6B. As far as TWS - what Crunch said :)

I had a TI99, TRS-80, Commodore 64, Commore SX-64 (that had MAJOR cool factor back then), Commodore 128, Amiga 500, and then into PC. I still remember my 386 with the 387 math co-processor lol!

I'd increase the density of the smoke trail. Ones ingame are kinda thin ;)

Classifed Crypto's changes on a daily basis, so getting the enemy's key would be a bit of a challenge. Also, for military aircraft, sqawking IFF continually is not done unless they're flying over the ole homeland. IFF, comms, radar, etc are only turned on when needed in a hostile enviroment. Fly silent and stay electronically invisible (passive countermeasures). The added CPU load for mode 4 IFF implementation would just be one more thing to task the systems of those who can't afford a high end rig. At some point, a balance has to be made between performance for the most customers within reason and features.

You'll like DCS Blackshark as well then :) I can always tell in online play those who haven't worked at it. They side slip constantly, hover into the side of a cliff, spin at take off, collide with parked vehicles, suffer blade collision, fry their laser, etc etc And, with the upcoming compatibility patch making DCS online compatible with Flaming Cliffs 2, then you'll basically have a 3-in-1 addition to your flight time :D

If you're looking for a Falcon Replacement - this isn't it. Just like Falcon, nor any of the multitude of variants, would not be a replacement for Flaming Cliffs. Each are their own game with their own ups and downs. Where one falters in realism, the other picks up and vice versa. Instead looking to replace Falcon, consider Flaming Cliffs and addition to your flight time :)

Same here. I always thought Angel Dust was their most progressive album :)

The problem is the tight pattern and the coloration scheme. Take this beautiful bird for example. Much better for an airborne target:

If you have your water set to "High" - turn it to medium. The water table covers the ENTIRE map, not just areas with water. Not a bug, just how the engine is. Also, put your shadows to All Planar instead of Full. Also, the further you zoom the FOV out, the fewer frames you will have ;) I was running LockOn: Flaming Cliffs 1.12 and Blackshark just fine with an AMD 2.2GHz dual core, 2GB DDR2, and an nVidia 512MB 8600GT. The game engine for Lock On was developed to be far ahead of the top of the line systems at that time. Flaming Cliffs 2.0, which is on the Blackshark engine, runs eons smoother than the orginal Lock On ;)

Here's the settings I use for my X52 trimmers (see attachment). I can dial it in pretty slowly instead of having the aircraft bob :) For my roll, pitch, and rudder axises I set the curve to 25.

ArmA2 is what ya make of it. In the NoAssholes server, we cater to the casual gamer rather thant he structured heiarchy. As far as BD2, tried it. Looked like I'd get maybe 3-4 months out of it and then I'd be bored with it. $50 for 3-4 months just doesn't do it for me lol!

I takes the admins a while. It is afterall an international company :) First do a search for "X65" and "X65F" READ through the returned threads. Someone may have very well already addressed the same problem and a fix may have already been posted. MNo sense in making a new thread. Examples: Watch this one: http://www.saitekforum.com/showthread.php?t=18657&highlight=X65F Support replied in this one: http://www.saitekforum.com/showthread.php?t=18606&highlight=X65F :)

I found a nice sweet spot for my rotaries. I'll post the settings when I get home this evening :)

The BMP-2 is equipped with a laser target designator. As someone said above, consider it the canon on the blackshark with better armor. It has a commander, gunner, and driver. It's a bad ass machine. the BMP-3 has even more toys. The ZSU Shilka and Tunguska have a radar system used for longer range detection and fire control, but that just means that they can reach out and touch you from farther away. It doesn't mean that the BMP-2 and BMP-3 should be taken lightly in their AAA ability by contrast :) Flying head on into a TOW missile humvee is a recipe for disaster as they are laser designated as well (that goes for ingame as in RL) Heck, it's nice to see the tanks firing on us too. Ground Pounding in FC 1.12 really was a turkey shoot unless you ran by a Strela, Shilka, or Tunguska. Now, it's more realistic :D

No visible birds, but you'll definitely know cuz you'll suddenly get a dead engine and a fire warning :D Had it happen to me several times. The most catasrophic was when I was doing a low pass between two C-17's on the tarmac LOL!

Erm, reference post #62 and #63 of this thread ;)

Very true on the first statement, but the compatibility patch isn't for FC2 - it's already done. We got with FC2 what was promised. There is a delay with making DCS Blackshark compatible ;) And 2nd point +1 :thumbup:

Uhm, the compatibility of DCS with FC2 was NOT part of FC2. FC2 was complete in it's release. The compatibility patch is for a seperate game - DCS ;)

What he is saying combat is that you did not write the engine so you have no idea how it runs it's calculation algorithms. Take for instance the Unreal engine. 1 unit of gravity in that engine does not equal 1 unit of gravity in reality. If you know the offset value to relate to 1 unit of realistic gravity in the Unreal engine, then you can adjust parameters accordingly. If you do not know the offset, then you will be guessing with every variable you adjust. You start adjusting these missile parameters and you are adjusting blindly. You will be adjusting variables for an equation that you do not know. Forget what the equation should theoretically be. This is a game engine, not a scientific calculator, so the equations will be structured differently.

Referencing the first post - Raytheon's information brochure gives the weight of several variants of the AGM-65 Mav's. The 360kg launch weight sounds more like the AGM-88 HARM's launch weight (I could be wrong, just pulling data outta my skull I haven't looked at in years lol)

Well good, then you should know that you can't rely on informational brochures as the data needed to specify an accurate model. That's like putting only the VCC and Rf variables for a 4560 configured as an amplifier into Spice and expecting it to give you an accurate output reading (ie leaving out Ri, input signal freq, amplitude, etc). GG did address weight. He addressed it in the most direct way possible. Weight changes as the missile burns fuel. At full load, the missile's velocity is going to be less than it will be a half fuel load. Hal fwill be less than it will be at 1/4 fuel load. Until it runs out of fuel, it is providing the same amount of thrust. As weight decreases, thrust remains the same, speed and range increase. While that's pretty straight forward, two things the brochure does not state is the total fuel load and the fuel consumption rate of the AIM-120. This can greatly extend the range of a missile without compromising speed. From my own experience, the AIM-120 is under-modeled. Actually, the capabilities of the F-15C with it's combat electronics suite is under modeled. If it were modeled correctly, it would probably be the dominant aircraft in the game. For the sake of balance, I am thankful it's under modeled. Now, all of that said - a great combat pilot in a lesser aircraft can come out on top of a mediocre pilot in a far superior aircraft. You can give a person every system capability, but if they are not proficient with it, then they are not superior ;)

There's plenty to say, but to someone who won't listen ;) http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_amraam_datasheet.pdf Raytheon AIM-120 C7 Datasheet. That's a very generic datasheet. VERY generic. It lists none of the technical specifications. To give you an idea of how deep REAL data sheets go, here's a simple one. The datasheet for a common opamp used in MANY audio devices. The 4560 series opamp. http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/rc4560.pdf That's a consumer grade, simple opamp and the datasheet is 11 pages. What Raytheon posted as the datasheet for the AIM-120 C7 is actually an Information Brochure. You are getting NONE of the technical performance data in that "datasheet" The data you are trying to compare is not going to be found in a short pdf file. It's going to be found in a series of manuals, TRD's, ECO histories, ICD's, etc They are a pain to compile (I've done them for systems in the F-15, F-18, V-22, C-130, F-16, etc) yet they give all of the comprehensive data you think you are gathering from short brochures from the internet ;)

I have looked at the manufacture sheets and, well, they give you alot of useful information, but it's up to you to take that data and run the equations for performance. I can tell you that a car can sustain speeds of 140MPH. Ok, so does that mean it can sustain those speeds in a tight turn? Can is sustain those speeds in windy weather? How about at higher elevation terrain? heck, can it sustain them uphill? As a veteran and someone who worked military avionics research and development for a decade, I can say this with 100% confidence: The datasheets aren't wrong, but you are reading the scant information they give as all encompassing.