Trident

Yep, always try to keep the laser cursor well within the HUD's field of view. It appears that the latter corresponds closely with the actual gimbal limits of the designator in the nose.

The grass is neat!

I think they did right to not mention any dates. Setting a fixed schedule can be a tricky business, the LOMAC community in particular should know that all too well ;) As soon as the release is postponed for the first time people would start to question ED for publishing a date, just the way they did with LOMAC, its patches and most recently 1.1.

Similarly, is anyone planning to model the Dnepr ABM radar at Khersonnes airfield?

Amazing, makes me regret even more that I couldn't obtain 1.1 in time to watch. A great idea and breathtaking flying by the VFTC, and a very nice movie from you! I for one don't mind the musical hooks, it's things like that which are going on in my mind when ever I listen to good music.

It's not at all uncommon to have even modern RWR's provide only limited spatial coverage. Most provide a 360° field of view in azimuth (toroidal coverage, i.e. limited in elevation) nowadays, but full spherical coverage is a very recent thing AFAIK (IIRC even the JAS39A doesn't have it, the -C might). This is modelled in LOMAC since v1.02.

Good one, they're really common in real life after all. Flanker2 had them, makes you wonder... ;)

The aircraft in camo (as opposed to grey schemes) are probably aggressors. The ones on the first image would seem to be Hornets, they look too large to be F-16s.

Hmm... something to consider for SwingKid's Merzifon mod maybe! Trees were a popular request and they would certainly add some life to the rather barren generic scenery.

Fantastic! Will you animate the folding wings?

Looking as good as ever :) Do you have any plans to convert it into an AH-64A once you are finished? That model could obviously also use some improvement.

Going by the model viewer in the LOMAC encyclopedia some models have the underwater hull modelled, some don't. Whatever you do is probably ok, although modelling the hull below the waterline would be preferable, I suppose ;)

I don't think he's silly enough to make up an email just for kicks. He may be biased, but I don't think he's dumb ;) I have a feeling that we are looking at a misunderstanding on someone's part here, but I'd like to know for sure. I'll buy FC in the near future, no worries there :)

Excellent! Sort of as an extension of the current head-movements that are induced by lateral and vertical g's. Very good idea :)

This doesn't sound good. And there I was thinking ED had the copy-protection figured out :( I'll wait a bit before eventually purchasing FC, by then these activation issues will hopefully be rectified. I'd also like to hear some confirmation that you don't need to re-purchase a license after those 5 activations, recent news has been contradictory in this regard.

Bug2: Since the EA-6B is based on the A-6 airframe, wouldn't the gear retraction sequence be the same on both? If so you could look for references on the A-6's gear or ask the people who modelled the A-6 for SF:P1 for their material.

Oh, before I forget: THANKS ED for deciding to migrate the other flyable aircraft to the AFM! Let's hope this happens as soon as possible (1.2?) :D

I'm also a bit puzzled why they seem to prefer the Falcon. The F/A-18C would really make for an ideal counterpart for the MiG-29K (kick a$$ desicion there ED, BTW :) ) and you wouldn't be in direct competition with Falcon4. The F-16 imposes the same avionics-challenges (including A/G-radar) on ED as the Hornet, so I don't think that's the reason. Infact, the avionics overlap between the F-15 and the F/A-18 is probably bigger than with any other western jet, they're both MDD designs afterall. Hell, the Hornet even uses an adaption of the F-15's MSIP HOTAS :)

Not to mention their functionality - not sure how well LOMAC would handle stand-off jamming. The model looks extremely good (very professional job there Bug2!) but unless ED makes some changes to the LOMAC engine it will most likely be limited to cosmetic uses and maybe firing the odd HARM or two. This is probably one of the drawbacks of 3rd party modelling: development is poorly coordinated and lacks focus. From a rational point of view aircraft like the F-15E or redoing the F-14 and MiG-31 would be the most desirable projects and yet noone has even touched these sofar ;)

Yes, the intake looks much better now :)

That shark mouth is excellent!

Nope, that's not it: they're charging everyone else more than the CIS/Russian citizens. There are several reasons for this, for example the fact that the average Russian has nowhere near as much money to spend on games compared to western users and the widespread piracy in Russia. They need to sell FC cheaply, or they won't sell it much at all over there. OTOH, they can't expect to find many customers in the west, due to the lack of a boxed version (blame Ubi) and any meaningful product awareness outside (dedicated simming-) internet communities. To make the online release of FC worthwhile financially despite this they need to charge more for it. The reality is that the add-on is likely to yield far more money in the CIS inspite of the lower price, simply because it will be on store shelves and thus sell much better (I'd *estimate* upwards of one or two orders of magnitude better, infact). If the opportunity existed for ED to release a comprehensive add-on that was targeted at western markets then I'm sure they would do so. However, lacking a publisher to advertise and distribute hard-copy products outside the CIS/Russia, this was/is not to be. Just my view of the situation.

New flyable aircraft are out of the question unfortunately. For now, the discussion will have to remain limited to adding/re-doing AI aircraft.

What BeetleJuice said :) You can also save this setting in your User control panel (top left) -> Edit Options -> Default Thread Age Cut Off , with the result that it stays that way in future.

As for new AI aircraft: - F-15E: THE most important aircraft which is still missing IMHO. It's highly unlikely that you'd have seen the USAF going to war without it in the 1990's. - F-111F: If the above isn't possible for whatever reason atleast include this one. Implementing the USAF without a tactical strike capability is strange. - KC-135R: There are only about 60 KC-10's IIRC, a fleet that would be stretched thin pretty quickly in a major conflict. The KC-135 is still the mainstay of the USAF tanker force. AI aircraft that are in great need of a 3D-model overhaul: - F-14: If possible, I'd suggest modelling a B-version, this variant seems to represent the best replication of the 'average Tomcat' in USN service. - MiG-31