Trident

You can say that again! Or at least a F-111F.

The MiG-afterburner screenshot is definately very realistic, although I agree that the F-15 effect is overdone (it looks like the thing is on fire!). Like I said, ED can and should experiment with the colours/transparency, there is no inherent need for particle effects to be that bright (unless it's night-time of course). The point is, particle effects are already there and can potentially be made to look far better than what we currently have.

Yes, there is a ski-jump alright ;) Note the barrel-shaped radar on the tower, it's of the same type as on the Kuznetsov too. NITKA would be a sweet addition to LOMAC, same for the emergency barrier on the Kuz (and NITKA?).

Just a little cosmetic suggestion from me, I think LOMAC needs more modern afterburner effects. The ones we have now are practically unchanged from Flanker2.0 and are showing their age. Mind you, with some 3rd party mods and heat blur turned on they actually look pretty decent, but few of us can really afford to turn heat blur on (I can't). The thing that strikes me is that NO new technology is required to make a significant difference, if ED were to use a particle effect similar to the existing missile exhaust effect in LOMAC they could come up with a rather good solution IMHO. Here are some good examples of particle based afterburners in other sims: FS2004 using Iris Simulation's MiG-29 add-on (screenshot taken from their forums): http://portal.netherways.com/Reviews/MiG29/IRISMiG09.jpg Wings over Vietnam with the Mirage Factory F-15A add-on (screenshot found on checksix): http://damwaar.homelinux.net/manetsim/Images12/FX2.jpg Obviously ED could play around with different colours, but these examples show that a very nice effect can be achieved with technology that is already present in the LOMAC engine.

LOL, I had a rather similar view of the OVT's pre-flight at Berlin two months ago :) BTW, the lines in the canopy are some kind of antenna, apparently. You'll find them on most MiG-29M based Fulcrums.

I'm at a loss for words! I can't even begin to count how often I just giggled with delight while watching those videos :D :D Electrical systems, fuel system, system checks, fire extinguishers, programmable dispensers, OH MY!! I sure hope the manual comes with precise checklists. I suppose my only gripe would be that it isn't the Su-27 ;)

Looks fantastic!

The F-16 has the same arrangement as the Su-27 (inboard flaperons and differential operation of the horizontal tail). The maneuver is called aileron roll to distinguish it from, say, a barrel roll. As mentioned by others, the Flanker has a decent roll rate but takes some time for it to build up due to the inertia of a big plane with 2 widely spaced engines. I think the Su-33 has ailerons, although they droop for landing so the distinction to full-span flaperons is probably not clear.

Nice! I would have loved to go and see the Blue Angels (Leeuwarden was their only European show this year, I believe) but not enough money after going to ILA2006 last month :(

LOL! Aerobraking with a heavy intercontinental bomber, that's pretty neat actually :D

Most of the aircraft parked in weird patterns are older types awaiting disposal (MiG-21/23/25). That Russian airfields site is a nice find Starlight, probably the best English-language resource on the net for this topic. Puts FAS and globalsecurity to shame for sure, although that isn't hard, admittedly (Nikolayevsk-na-Amure is not in the NIMA database of placenames, so that must mean it doesn't exist? Very thorough analysis indeed ;) )

The 'towing device' is a yard crane, look at the shadow :)

The thing is, there don't seem to be any additional antennea on Italian Tornados. Since they are flying around without ECM pods it is very probable that they do have internal ECM now, but where??

I think the chances of it becoming a fly-able are slim at best, so do whatever version you fancy. As long as it's an AI aircraft noone is going to care about A/G-radar etc. (didn't the Lancer-C get axed anyway?).

Well, I personally know someone who'd start flying LOMAC the very second a Linux version became available ;) But I realize that 99.9% of all simmers aren't as militant in their refusal to use Windows for whatever reason :D I do think an OGL-based engine would be prudent for ED's future projects though, now that Macs are finally running on more competitive hardware there might be a sizeable market for an OSX-compatible flightsim. Most likely they would be rewriting the greater part of the engine anyway. True that, but DirectPlay for example is of dubious value, as per Dmut's comments (correct me if I'm wrong). What else is there that would present a significant challenge when porting?

Ah, I'd heard about an internal ECM system on the Italian Tornados before. However I remember seeing sources that claimed it got cancelled and never could imagine where they found enough room to install it (and why on earth the other countries didn't do the same with their ECM systems). Interestingly, the Tornado F.3 can be fitted with semi-internal chaff/flare-dispensers below the engine bays, if combined with an internal ECM-system (if indeed possible) that would give you two additional pylons or much reduced drag. Pretty confusing.

Cool! Any idea why Italian Tornados always seem to carry 2 chaff/flare dispenser pods and never an ECM pod?

If the Hornet and MiG-29K are out for some reason then this would most certainly be the next best thing IMHO.

I'd absolutely adore a Hornet. Especially if accompanied by a MiG-29K ;) That would be a perfect match-up.

I second that!!!

What Weta said, although your point is valid. Besides, even a reduction to about 7.2 tons or so would still be a huge step in the right direction (think of the absolute amount of oil and emissions saved each year!), but somehow I doubt that will happen :(

Germany uses 5.1 tons (most European countries are in that ballpark, some lower some higher), the US and Canada about 10.6. Don't tell me your standard of living is proportionately higher, infact I doubt there is any practical difference at all. Efficiency is how you can achieve similar results using far less resources. This is not some utopian vision, it's the reality today.

That's not the point. The point is that using 10.6 tons of oil per capita per annum to support a lifestyle that can be achieved just fine with 5.1 tons is, to be completely frank, a horrendous and irresponsible waste. That's not being optimistic it's being ignorant.

They're not only evaluating the thickness of the ice layers built up each year. They are also looking for ash deposits etc.. What works for volcanic ash is very likely to work for CFCs aswell ;)

Don't be so sure about that. Meteorologists are using Antarctic ice samples to learn more about the historical development of the world's climate, in other words EVERYTHING (not just us) seems to have a (very measurable) effect there. Distance means very little in connection with the world's weather system. Remember the temperature changes all over the globe following the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (or Krakatoa, for that matter)?