britgliderpilot

No, that'd be using the Su33 flight model and the MiG29K shape. You'd lose the Su33 and have a reskinned version in it's place. If you're using the current MiG29K entry, there is no way to have a tailhook on it as a flyable aircraft, the code just isn't there. Sorry - that's the way it is.

Have been there and tried - there is no way to have a tailhook on the MiG29K in Lomac, the code just isn't there. It's a shame . . . but it can't be done.

The spec is open to interpretation - IIRC the dispensers are actually in the tailboom, so that's wrong. The Flanker 2 manual stated that there were a number of countermeasure cartridges, each of which releases two flare and one chaff. You fire a cartridge containing that amount, not invidual flare or chaff. But hey . . . . many things to be improved upon :P

Hmmn - might they be using YF-22 data?

GGTharos makes an interesting point - you've got at least nine times the maintenance and support personnel for that mathematics . . . . . grin.

I think he's talking out of his arse :P There are some uninformed comments, some daft comments, and some downright wrong comments in it. The bit where he's comparing a 20mm cannon to a WW2 .50cal BMG, and the F-22 to Voyager particularly made me chuckle . . . . .

The MiG in that track is acting as the MiG should - you can relax about your hardware, but there is stuff to learn here that you probably haven't seen before. :) Shamandgg perhaps voiced that a little strongly, it wasn't deserved . . . . First things first - in the threads various you seem to be confusing the control surfaces, so let's get that out of the way to begin with. Much of this you probably know, but there seems to be some confusion so I'll mention it anyway. The Ailerons control the roll of the aircraft. They're mounted at the trailing edge of the wing, towards the tips. The Elevators control the pitch of the aircraft - nose up/nose down. They're mounted on the horizontal tail of the aircraft. The Rudders control yaw - nose left/nose right. They're mounted on the vertical tail of the aircraft. The MiG is similar to most modern fast jets in that the lines get blurred slightly between control surfaces . . . . Here in the form that the elevator is actually an all-moving tailplane that also controls roll at high speed. Without going into too much detail, this is due to the way aerodynamics change at supersonic speeds - a moving surface at the back of the wing is no longer effective when you're flying faster than the speed of sound. If both elevators and ailerons were hinged surfaces, you'd effectively lose control - by using an all-flying tail for pitch control you can regain it, and by differential angling of the tail on each side you can regain roll control as well. It's still useful subsonic, but the real purpose is in supersonic flight. Other aircraft will mix flaps (high lift devices mounted inboard on the wings) with ailerons - not because of high-speed requirements, but just because it makes sense to have both functions combined. Elevators/Ailerons combined are usually called Tailerons. Ailerons/Flaps combined are usually called Flaperons. Compare control movements of the MiG, the Su27, and the Su33 from an external view, with and without flaps, and you'll learn a bit about them - they all work slightly differently, see if you can identify the differences. Units - Lomac was developed from a sim featuring only Russian aircraft, and the Russians do things in metric. Speeds are in km/h, heights are in metres, and distances are in km. This is ALWAYS the case on the aircraft displays, but for external views you can change the units to imperial. One km/h is about two knots, one metre is about three feet . . . . I still find myself doing quick mental arithmetic to calculate some of this stuff. The reading between the HUD speed and the external view speed is sometimes different - this is because the air is thinner at altitude. The airspeed indicator basically measures the pressure of the oncoming air - speed up and it's greater, slow down and it's less. Since the air's thinner at altitude there'll be less pressure at 600km/h at 10,000m than there will be at 600km/h at sea level - so the indicator will read differently. While you're flying at true speed of 800km/h at 15,000 metres, the forces on the aircraft at that speed will be equal to the forces of about 300km/h at sea level and so you should treat your aircraft as if you were flying at that speed. 300km/h is quite slow, and at high altitude you have less spare thrust to play with (thin air again) - hard turns up there will result in you slowing down and stalling much more easily than at sea level. The bouncing you're noticing is due to the fact that despite the elevators being neutralised, the aircraft is still pitching forward - it has some inertia in pitch that takes a bit of time (and passing through zero alpha (angle of attack) and back the other way) to damp out. Some aircraft will move the elevators to stop the pitch rate before you pass through zero alpha, but the MiG doesn't because it's fly-by-wire doesn't go that far. You can control this yourself by not just letting the stick back to neutral when you want to return to level flight. If you relax it to neutral gently, then the aircraft will pitch forward more smoothly and should (when you get it right) avoid bouncing altogether. The loss of control is a stall. Stalling occurs when you exceed maximum angle of attack of the wing, and you get turbulent flow developing. This turbulent flow causes loss of lift (and wing performance), and usually loss of control - in order to regain control you need to get out of the stall. To do this, you push the stick forward, decreasing the angle of attack until airflow over the wing is smooth again. If you remain below the critical angle of attack for the wing, you won't stall the aircraft and you won't lose control - the newer aircraft will let the computers sort that out for you, but in the MiG you just have to watch carefully how much you're pulling back on the stick. A flat plate will stall at about twelve degrees angle of attack, whereas a cleverly shaped piece of aerodynamics will hold on a bit longer . . . . IIRC the MiG stalls at just over twenty degrees, and the Su27 will stall at just over twenty-five degrees. Basically, you need to learn to fly these aircraft more smoothly than F22, especially in pitch. Move the stick smoothly and deliberately, be aware of how much back stick you're applying, and if you get a maximum angle of attack warning or see any shuddering (a sign of the onset of turbulent flow), then relax back pressure on the stick slightly. If when you've done that the AoA warning is still going off, then you've entered a stall and will need to recover - see above. It'll take some practice before you can do this every time, but that's the learning curve - you need to learn this control before you get into combat, otherwise the enemy will take advantage of you. I found a useful way to learn the handling and have fun was to set yourself up, guns only, against an easy AI target - the F14 is probably the easiest. Give yourself a lower fuel load than him to start with, in a head on merge, and have a go at outmaneuvring him. As you get better, then up his skill and move on to more maneuvrable opponents. Hope the above is useful (and not too basic) - if you've got any questions or comments then ask :)

Designed to complement it, yes . . . . but remember that the JSF is a younger aeroplane than the F-22. The Raptor was first conceived in 1981. It was selected for production as the ATF in 1991. The Lightning II was much more fluid in it's creation - although the seeds were sown in the mid-to-late eighties, the program kept shifting and goals kept changing. . . . JSF was selected ten years later than ATF. AFAIK they don't change the spec massively between selection and service introduction (see the age of the Raptor's computers for an example) - and although upgrades can be planned, if both aircraft enter service with the capabilities they had at selection then JSF's technology will be ten years ahead of Raptor's. We of all people should know how fast technology moves - if you were simming in 1991, remember back and see how the tech's moved on ;) The Raptor is the cream, but purely by virtue of being ten years newer, the JSF has a number of advantages - as a result it's in the slightly bizarre position that some of the developments made for it are going to feed back to upgrades for it's big brother. Cool, no?

In other words, acceleration of the massflow PLUS difference in pressure*area at nozzle exit.

He's wrong. The thrust of a jet engine (or indeed any aero engine) comes from accelerating the mass flow through the engine. My University lecturers say so, Rolls-Royce's excellent book The Jet Engine says so. Pressures and where the thrust is loaded internally within the engine, I'd have to read up on . . . . but it wouldn't take too long to find the answers/equations and post them.

Not entirely. I went from a 9700 Pro to an X800XL on a P4 2.8 and only a little happened. Better, yes . . . . but when I upgraded from the 2.8 to an AMD 64-bit 3700+, THEN impressive things happened. CPU power HELPS ;)

OK, here's the deal - I have a 15" TFT monitor with a native resolution of 1024x768. Zoomed in to the HUD it's all crisp and clean - but when you zoom out it doesn't just get further away, the text and lines begin to break up and vanish. I'm assuming this is the lines getting thinner than one of my big pixels and hence not being displayed properly - anything else it could be? Overzealous AA or AF, perhaps? Short of buying a higher resolution monitor, is there any way around this? The lines thicken artificially at a certain zoom distance to allow some respite from this problem - but zoomed right out it's not enough. Suggestions gratefully welcomed . . . .

LMAO!

True - but of those visiting the forums it seems to me that the majority have bought the addons. Shrug. Those who haven't upgraded will probably use the same reasons: "OMFG Starforce why teh russian mudmovers unfiar bias!1!!one!", and I'd expect the majority of those who bought FC to take the logical step (and excellent decision) of upgrading to BS as well. ;)

The main focus of the addon is on the Ka50 - there's no getting around that. You will see feature upgrades and bug fixes that cover the other aircraft, and some of the improvements that were brought in for the chopper will be a benefit for fixed-wing aircraft - especially jets like the Su25 and A10 that share a vaguely similar anti-tank role to the Ka50. I'm sure there'll be a couple of tweaks for the A2A fast jets - someone mentioned the AIM120C and B being separated, but I don't know if that's true or not - but ED seem to be keeping any of those features to themselves at the moment. Either way, I'd wholeheartedly recommend buying Black Shark - you might like the chopper more than you expect, bugfixes and new features will be there, and of course you get to keep up to speed with everyone else in MP.

Weeeell, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they repainted it ;)

If that's not the Airwolf music, it damn well should be :P

Indeed - arrestor cables, carrier deck markings, meatball and I believe there's a ski-jump there somewhere too :)

The facility is at Saki, it's on the northern of the two runways - the area just past the threshold that's wider than usual. It would indeed be cool, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it being implemented in Lomac ;)

That's Crane as in the bird, right? Just making sure . . . .

'Tis all a bit hazy, so don't take this as gospel . . . . but my understanding is that Tank Killers will build on the current Lomac engine, adding detail to the Su25s and A10. Whether it will be sold under the Lock On name is a different matter, though. The F16 Sim is apparently supposed to be an entirely new engine, but I'd be surprised if it didn't take big chunks of Lomac code to create it.

I wouldn't hold your breath for that - instead, I'd go to Thunder-Works.com and marvel at the Harriers they're creating over there ;)

Um. When was this discussion? To the best of my knowledge, any additional flyables have to wait for Black Shark, Tank Killers, the F16 sim, and bringing the other fast jets up to that standard . . . . .

Actually, it's not. Dual-control code was written for v1.02, but junked along with the LAN code in the transition to Flaming Cliffs. I wrote a mod which maximised it's effectiveness and effectively allowed two-seaters in the form of the Su30 and alike. It's theoretically possible to do, it's just that it's a challenge to write the code again and you'd need a fast connection to deal with it. Oh, and there are no two-seaters in Lomac, Flaming Cliffs, OR Black Shark . . . . :P ED are working flat out on the Ka50, no more choppers are going to make it in. I'm not quite sure you understand the detail involved in the Ka50 at the moment - someone want to link to the cold start vid?