Andrew_McP

Very nice work GA. Great use of music. Andrew McP

:-) I get claustropohia if I let more than 50% of my desktop get covered with icons. I clear it out regularly, but somehow it always ends up back near 50% again very quickly. Maybe we both just need bigger monitors? ;-) Andrew McP

I recommend you keep your money in the bank unless you earn a lot and can afford to indulge yourself. :-) The current generation of new hardware (with minimal improvements in CPU MHz) is all about pushing hardware drugs to hardware junkies if you ask me. Dual core, 64-bit, PCI-E... all great for marketing departments, but lousy bang for buck for *significant* real world improvements. On my 2.3GHz Mobile Barton, 1Gb, ATI X800Pro system the only game I would like better performance from is LOMAC. I can fly at 1600x1200, x4fsaa with almost the same frame rates as at 1024x768 (I fly with graphics set to maximum except viewing distance, which is set at medium). What LOMAC *really* needs is about another 2GHz of processor power... which isn't going to happen until ED can afford to re-write the code from scratch for dual core and 64-bit. I'm not holding my breath, but I am holding my wallet tightly for the time being. :-) Good luck making a decision. I'd upgrade my processor if I could guarantee overclocking a cheap AMD 64-bit core to 3GHz, but 2.7/8 seems to be the average limit, and that's only a 20% boost in MHz, which is nowhere near enough for *me* to justify an upgrade. Others will disagree, but I work too hard for my money to spend it so easily! I suspect I may change my mind when 1.2 comes out. Frame rates when flying the 25T (which I do rarely despite the superb flight model) are already a little on the low side, and a 20% improvement might make the difference between too slow and acceptable in the new helicopter. I'll wait to see first though. Andrew McP PS Forgot I have water set to medium too.

I had no interest whatsoever in 1.2 (that helicopter's just a slower version of the 25-T if you ask me, and the 25T's slow enough already), but that's still a great video. Despite my reluctance to buy 1.2 or a TIR4/5/6/7/8 or whatever version it is this week, I may be forced to buy both just to sit on the ground and mess about like that for a while. Then I can fire up the Su-27 again and do what I enjoy most in LOMAC...dream about ED adding the darned AFM to an aircraft I care about! :-) Andrew McP

Absolutely right. The light springs (functional only because of the lightweight plastic construction) stop CH falling into the Cougar trap. Stiffen those springs and you (a) add to wear & tear on the plastic body, and (b) risk the same notchy mess the Cougar suffers from. It would require a total redesign and a higher price tag to make stiffer springs work as we'd want them to. And while I'd be happy to pay more for a "Fighterstick Pro", I doubt demand would be high enough to justify development and distribution costs. Andrew McP

The Cougar world is split fairly evenly between those who love it and those who wasted money on it. If you want to find out which camp you're in for certain, buy one, because all the advice in the world won't tell you what *your* opinion will be. The entry price is steep, but you get to bitch or fanboi as much as you want afterwards. :-) Andrew McP... who wasted 250ukp (about $430) on his Cougar.

Ah, it's outdated because it's been a loooong time since I bothered to read about stuff I never use. :-) Glad to hear the Cougar has one less thing to lure people in its direction. Now if only CH can add flaking paint and a $500 optional upgrade for perfect gimbal strength they'll have the high end paperweight market cornered! ;-) Andrew McP

Confuscious, he say: if it's so darned good why does it need updating so often? :-) I'm just bitter because I bought version 1 about ten minutes before the second came out. I was slowly building up to buying the third because the first never worked well for me. But now... maybe I'll wait for version 5 ;-) What I'd really like to see is a version that uses two detectors placed a few feet apart to give much wider and more accurate movement detection. It'd be more expensive, obviously, but I'm sure the extra coverage would make it a much more transparent experience. However I'm basing this on my experience with the first version so I may be out of touch with what more recent units are capable of... though there has to be a limit to the detection capabilities of one source/detector. Andrew McP

That's because CH make good hardware. You could always try an Saitek X-52 (or whatever number they're up to this week). Looks like a kid's idea of what a stick ought to look like, but with the built in rudder it's a very flexible and cost effective bit of kit. The stick itself is fairly poor, but when you get sick of it you can buy a CH Fighterstick and hide the Saitek stick behind your monitor or something (it has to be connected to the throttle but you can use any number of controllers in LOMAC... just remember to disable unused stick axes inside LOMAC's options or you'll end up with phantom inputs confusing you as much as it confused me... for about three months <blush>). The CH Fighterstick is a great stick. Rather loose, but you soon adjust and that lightness gives you very accurate, fingertip control that the stock Cougar just cannot manage IMO. I have a Cougar but it was soon, and very sadly, relegated to ornamental status (looks kewl, but I can't fly with it to save my life). I'd get rid of it, but I do hope one day to find a good excuse to spend much more money than it cost in the first place modding it. Somehow I doubt that'll ever happen though, because the Fighterstick gives me everything I need from a stick apart from cramp. ;-) Ok you don't get the same degree of programmability as the Cougar, but how many people really use all that power? Not many, I'll bet <fx:queue of guys forms, all using their Cougar to programme the central heating and read stories to their kids at bedtime> Anyway, good luck with your choice, it can be hard work spending money sometimes. I always say I don't mind spending a lot of money as long as I get what I want. But I've been bitten more times by joysticks than the postman's been bitten by dogs. My first stick, in '93, was a CH Flightstick and it lasted for *years* of heavy use. Wonderful bit of kit, and my biggest mistake was trying just about everything else on the market before returning to CH again in 2004. Mmm... must be time to shut up, my fingers are sore ;-) Andrew McP

The existing editor is pretty powerful even without any triggering or other advanced features. What lets it down most is the AI (on aircraft *and* vehicles). No use trying to bake a great cake without decent ingredients. Andrew McP PS Returning to the main subject, I found the demo for DI's F-16 disappointing and didn't buy it. But I bought and enjoyed just about everything else DI produced... well, except the F/A-18 sim. Nice aircraft carrier, shame about being eclipsed by Janes' F/A-18 in every other respect. (I blame it on that Wags bloke ;-).

Thanks for sharing those, very nice work indeed. Andrew McP

Sadly the missile in question is a problem (I forget which missile I actually loaded up with, but it wasn't "cheated" into the loadout using an editor, I just chose it off the weapons list). I didn't realise when I made the movie that the 25 can't use it in real life, and it doesn't have the same simple method of deployment. 1.1 changed all that and made the sim far more realistic... and less enjoyable for amateur SEAD fans like me. :-) So the movie is selling a partial lie, which I'm not really happy with. My Frog turned into a bit of a Toad. ;-) Andrew McP PS While I'm posting to the thread, my favourite movies are by either Dobberman/Lucio or Bill et John... no reliance on expensive editing software FX (though such movies are superb in their own, "MTV generation" kinda way), just on great ideas that are well executed.

If virtual pilots want a *real* test of their skills they fly against each other with identical aircraft and identical weapons. Then you're competing on a totally level playing field, and the virtual hardware is irrelevant. Fighting in different aircraft will always be a gamble, because nobody *really* knows how these aircraft and their weapons would really perform. So to get hung up on the modelling of a particular aircraft or missile is always pointless... as is waiting for a patch from ED. They only have so many man-hours to play with, and have to concentrate on generating the next revenue source. Besides, their patches have always been a little "fix one thing, break another" flavoured. All the more reason for ED to dump all the other distracting junk and go back to basics... Su-27 or nothing. ;-) Andrew McP... running away very quickly

Heh, well spotted. :-) Andrew McP

Coming from a flight sim fan that's a little rich! At least he has something to show for all the hours he "wastes". What do we have? A massive heap of broken virtual aircraft! :-) That's a beautiful model Su-27 that must be worth quite lot of money if he ever sells it. I admire his dedication. Andrew McP

Exactly. To me this just looks like LOMAC spin-doctored to fit a more serious market and purpose. And there's nothing wrong with that, I wish them luck with the project. But it's nothing to get excited about for us, the article describes what we have already... and the FAC stuff sounds like someone sat looking at the F10 view to me. :-) Andrew McP

So much excitement, so little justification. ;-) Andrew McP

A Brit called Ken Duffy is reporting his recent trip to Russsian airbases & shows. I just saw his link on the rec.aviation.military newsgroup, and I thought I'd pass it on. The main report is... http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits_pages/moscow_2005.html But the best shots are on his Lipetsk page... http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits_pages/mos2005_day02.html He was at MAKS 2005 too. So there should be more great pictures to follow. Andrew McP

A full dynamic campaign, no? But LOMAC *badly* needs some tactical elements adding to the core gameplay. Still, this is very old ground. The community's been having this discussion since Flanker 1.5. I just accept LOMAC for what it is rather than what it might be at some point in the indefinite future. I fly EECH if I want involving tactical gameplay, I fly LOMAC if I just want to enjoy flying. There are worse fates! :-) Andrew McP

Frog or Prince? 47Mb I can try yousendit if you want. Let me know your email address (send it to me at andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com if you like... remove the DELETETHIS first). Andrew McP

Yes I have. My webspace is full at the moment though (loaned it to someone else), and the movie's a bit big to email. Andrew McP

Superb flying and excellent creative work on the video. That knife edge formation is just *so* impressive. Coordinated skill like that takes a lot of effort! Well done everyone involved. It was only after seeing the VFTC flying live in April that I started to take formation flying seriously. If I'd seen this movie before then I would have assumed it was edited from a thousand attempts. Now I know they probably did it all in one "take" with an arm tied behind their backs, watching TV with one eye, and flying using the keyboard, not joysticks ;-) Andrew McP

Superb Apache shot! Andrew McP

Here's a short movie of the incident. > http://www.sukhoi.fsnet.co.uk/APG/RIAT.mpg (link copied from a post in rec.aviation.military) Andrew McP

Sexy looking sealed bearings! Takes me back to my skateboarding days. I can still smell new red Kryptonics if I close my eyes <sigh>. Er... I'm getting distracted. Looks like a great bit of work. The main reason I don't sell or give away my Cougar is that one day I hope to build some decent gimbals for it. Might have to wait until I retire though :-) Andrew McP