britgliderpilot

Does it carry 192 and throw out two at a time, for a total of 96 uses? Anyone want to count? ;)

You're funny :P

Let us state once again, for the record, that none of these things depend on the 3D model of the aircraft you are flying. They depend on the coding of the game - which we still can't alter.

Hmmmn. I just tried extending gear and flaps in the Su25T above 500IAS, and it did it - think it was a feature of the more realistic modelling, the real aircraft doesn't stop you doing it at high speeds either. Any other aircraft you'd be right . . . . but this seems a more interesting problem. Tried a reinstall?

His first attempt at hovering is rather more successful than mine was . . . . .

There won't ONLY be the AIM-9B, don't worry ;) You can fit your shiny big F-15 with the AIM-9 as you know it . . . . just provides a bit more variation in mission-building, and the need to actually manuevre for a missile shot in a head-on merge if you're just doing things for fun. Not sure if a rear aspect missile has been added for the Russians, should probably go look . . . .

Ahem. Gliding!! Cheaper, more of a challenge, and the last real seat of the pants stuff you can do. Follow links. Watch. Oh . . . . and the daddy of all gliding videos has apparently been rehosted ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Ou383ro4A

Ah - no. Where "rear aspect" means "it can only be fired from behind". Older tech, not newer. There's supposed to be an older version of the AIM-9 present, and the AMRAAM is being separated out into the AIM-120B and AIM-120C. They're on the screenshots section ;) Not sure about anything else.

One man from an invading army wants to restore a monument to another invading army - from the look of things, his superiors disagree with him ;) From the average-Afghan point of view it sucks, but then so will anything. From US/Russian point of view . . . . it's a touching recognition of the sacrifice made by five young men who wanted to serve their country. They do the same job, they weren't exactly on different sides . . . . shrug. Even airmen on different sides can get on afterwards - they do the same job, it's a serious bit of common ground.

UAS = University Air Squadron. Obviously, it requires you to be at University . . . . other than that, I believe it's an RAF-supported flying school :) Not sure I know anyone doing Aeronautical stuff at Bath - know a few at Bristol who seem both clever and cool, you checked that one out? If you want to see difficult to get into, go look at the grades required for Imperial :P

I've never been in the RAF, but I know a couple of people who are trying. Six foot two is probably borderline for a fast jet pilot - if that's what you want. There are many more jobs in the RAF ;) Current RAF Careers site, under Aircrew\Pilot is saying: http://www.rafcareers.com/jobs/pilot.cfm Doesn't mention physical attributes - my problem's always been eyesight, otherwise I might have found myself in your position not so long ago :) Bear in mind that if you get in, "pilot" covers a multitude of sins. Could you hack flying a Herc or a Merlin if they ordered you to? As regards aeronautical engineering, it might not be as hard to get into as you think - Loughborough accepted me onto the BEng with ABC, and they do give the option to move up to MEng at the end of the second year. You've got a couple of options - be aware that most of them will involve hard work ;)

Mach 1 in a helicopter? Surely you've seen that most famous of all helicopter documentaries, Airwolf? What you're probably talking about with the explosion modelling will be a combination of AFM-style physics and tweaked warhead values. I've never seen it mentioned, but apart from the sheer number of ground units it shouldn't be too hard to implement. When we start getting a weapons AFM and AFM into more flyables, proper physics for ground vehicles is the next step. Seeing a tank flipped off the road by a bomb, or the turret flying up in the air after being hit by a Maverick . . . . yeah, would be awesome ;) Would take a little while, though.

Talking to the CIA's Black Helicopters. They're all colour-coded, you know.

OK, shall give that a go. My own strategy in SP is to do the max-range F-Pole for the first shot, then wait a little longer for the second before turning away and diving. Two missiles away usually results in a kill if flown correctly - the AI may evade the first, but if I fly correctly he's usually hit by the second. If he's using Sparrow then no worries, if he's using AMRAAM then watch the RWR and evade . . . . . after that it's a matter of waiting for his wingman to kill yours, which is virtually certain, and then attempting to regain SA enough to engage #2!

In SP at least, you can make use of the F-Pole and then Dive Dive Dive . . . . . still helps in getting the first shot in.

It's probably about time this thread was shut down . . . . . . Whenever Yugoslavia is mentioned things tend to get somewhat out of hand . . . .

It'd probably kill performance . . . . but headlights on vehicles moving at night using the same shader stuff as landing lights on aircraft? . . . . . . would be dribbleworthy :P Anyone?

"In the notch" is to do with the workings of doppler radar. Basically, in order to filter out the ground and lock on to targets lower than you, a doppler radar will filter out any returns that have zero speed relative to yourself. If a target flies at 90 degrees to you, it will have zero speed relative to you, it will be flying "in the notch", the radar will filter it out, and you will lose lock. However, if you're looking UP at the target then the notch does not occur. It doesn't need to - there's no ground to filter out. The F-Pole is a simple kinematic tactic for SARH missiles (R27, AIM-7). Basically, the faster and higher you are at the moment of missile launch, the faster your missile will go. The F-Pole tactic simply means that you fly into a BVR engagement very high, at very high speed, and hence you have a greater missile range than the enemy. After you fire, you turn away and slow down, your missile wings its way towards your enemy, and before his missile reaches you, your missile reaches him and he's dead. At that point his missile is no longer being guided and you've hence won the fight! With ARH missiles (AMRAAM, R77) it's more complicated, since they can guide themselves after their launch aircraft has been destroyed . . . . but that's not strictly part of the F-Pole tactic ;)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I hate you. Got any more spare money?

Thunder Works ;) The detail looks OK . . . . but I've seen other shots in which the terrain looks hardly any different to the original Il2. Which I didn't like. On the other hand . . . . it will be the south of England complete with all the airfields, it will be a Spitfire, and there will be yellow-nosed Huns coming out of the sun. So I'm buying it anyway :P I shall just remain annoyed at the terrain, and the way my Spitfire will skip a foot in the air over invisible/nonexistent bumps.

Whoa. Goodbye eyebrows!

Some silver-haired gentlemen from English Electric would like to talk to you ;)

Six against ten is bad odds - when they can engage multiple targets, you can only engage half of them, and they have ARH missiles then it's VERY bad odds. Not sure if I've got a tactic against that many . . . . . they all coming at you at once, or some delayed? The EOS thing is an odd one - can't explain that one. How far away were you, and was your EOS directed straight at them?

Ahhh, isn't the intarweb wonderful! So far there's the theory that it's a Pakistani Puma with a tailrotor shaft failure, or a French Puma that put the tail rotor in on landing. And allegedly the chap who fell out got bruised ribs. Mmmn. Nice touch there, I feel.

I think he's trying to say that YOU can do better with practice, not bragging that he's better than you are ;)