britgliderpilot

I've been meaning to get one for a while - two reasons. The first is money - I'm a penniless student and it seems every week a letter arrives wanting another hundred quid for room next year, parking next year, car tax . . . . The second is that I don't want to be mercilessly ribbed by my housemates for yet another attachment to my simming equipment collection :P Granted you can't use it for switches in combat, but if a TrackIR-driven startup IS possible, it'd rock.

In general, if you develop a capability when you're paid to do so by a customer, the rights to that then belong to the customer. You have to have their permission to use it in any other way. Of course if the information is in the public domain you can then release it generally . . . . . question is whether it will reach the public domain in the timeframe we'd like it to :P

The Rate of Fire switch should still work - not sure about the clock, have only ever used it in the Russian aircraft which have a working stopwatch function as per real life. Going to guns mode in A2A should result in the famous funnel sight appearing. Going to guns mode in A2G (at least in the A10) should result in the gun cross enlarging into a proper gunsight. They both aim the same way, just guns mode gives greater priority to the sight . . . .

It is my understanding that ED do all the code. The Fighter Collection deal with commercial aspects, customers, requirements . . . . . so they'll ask ED to develop a specific area. Whether details developed for specific end-users are included in our game depends largely on whether the customer will permit them to be included ;)

Your car will drive in a straight line without you at the wheel - yet how comfortable would you feel letting go of the steering wheel on the motorway? ;) Ever seen a vid of a Rafale M launching? The initial pitch-up on leaving the deck looks rather computer controlled, worth looking for if you haven't seen it.

Not as good as it'd feel in an Su33 :P

OK chaps, suggestions taken on board :) Just being able to sweep my head smoothly around a 3D pit to click something is going to be a good feeling - F4's 2D pit always annoyed me like that.

If at normal zoom, I'd agree - wondering if vector expansion zoom will let you get in close enough for, say, a TrackIR 4 to have sufficient accuracy . . . . or does the same still apply?

I'm just wondering if the precision zoomed in will be good enough that you can just use the a TrackIR and a joystick button mapped to "click" to run the clickable cockpit? I don't have a TrackIR, so don't know how accurate they can be - should be relatively easy to check out for anyone with a TrackIR with vector axis. See if you can aim your view accurately at a given switch or toggle in the Su25 or A10 pits . . . . Can anyone confirm?

It probably won't be commercially available at all - it's for professional end users. It's possible that some features might make their way back to the game, though.

7 F-15s vs 5 Su27s, you can count on losing jets. Losing a jet is just money - losing a pilot is worse. The F-15 is an air superiority fighter - fine. The F-22A is an air DOMINANCE fighter. It's not just an advantage, it allows you to OWN the enemy airspace - which in turn allows completely unmolested airspace for the real work to go on, which is the striking of military targets on the ground. WSoul - Export sales of the F-22A is an interesting question - I don't know of any country that would buy it, though. Rafale, Gripen, and Typhoon offer 75% of the advantages at 50% or less of the price. Honestly and simply, it depends how future-proof the country want their aircraft and how much they'll pay for it. Raptor is the daddy. But the other three offerings are significantly superior to any current Su/MiG variant that they are appealing (and potentially more cost-effective) in their own right.

Points :P I strongly expect to become a chopper ho in short order - NOE has some serious appeal to me ;) The more I play Lomac, the more the avionics detail of F4 appeals to me - however, the F-16 and the graphics turn me off and I'm back to flying A2A missions in the Su33 ;) In a perfect world we'd have AFM and a clickable pit in all the current aircraft - of course we can't have that right now, but the Ka50 shows a step very much in the right direction. Looking forward to it ;)

Weeeeell, that's one way of interpreting it. The other is that they're frustrated that they can't blow up air targets, and as a result are looking for ground targets to strafe ;)

The reason I asked if he came from a Flanker background is that (certainly in Flanker 2/2.5), the Russian jets DID simulate having a true MLWS system fitted. The manual stated that sensors mounted on the airframe picked up the IR signature of a missile launch and announced it to you - in F2.5 this was the case even BVR. This technology exists, and I believe it is in fact an option if you choose to go shopping at Sukhoi or Knaapo - however, it is an optional extra on a modern Su27. It is used to alert active IR jamming systems that are operational on a number of western aircraft today - mostly for anti-SAM use, fitted to C-130, C-17 and EH-101 that I know of, most likely others that I don't. It could indeed be used to warn a fast jet pilot of a missile launch - but it's a fairly solid conclusion that the hardware just isn't fitted to 90's Russian jets. The RWR will signal a BVR radar-guided missile launch as detected from some change in the radar signal (someone else can describe that better than I can), but there is no other way of detecting a launch other than visually. So for an IR-guided launch, keep your eyes peeled for smoke trails ;)

There is no major threat now, that's true. However . . . . . it takes twenty years to design and build a new fighter. If you wait for the threat to emerge before you wake up and start preparing for it, then you're already too late ;) If you can predict world politics 20 years ahead, let me know . . . . . The newest variants of the Su27/Su30 are in fact extremely capable aircraft. AESA radar, glass cockpits, RVV-AE . . . the IAF has proved that the USAF doesn't have a monopoly on training, tactics, or flight hours it can give to the pilots. If you put the most recent versions of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 up against an Su30MKI flown by a trained and integrated air force . . . . although they may win in the end, they would suffer significantly along the way. That scenario is a possibility. Fighting with equipment on a par with your opponent is something you should always try to avoid. The F-22A and JSF are designed to wipe the floor with any fighter currently in the air - make it not even a fair fight. They are designed to go out there and win the air war just like that - and have a little something left over for future threats as well.

Oi - the UK is the only non-US tier one team member on JSF. We're getting it already, tier two countries include existing European F-16 users and potential export sales have always been factored in. By the looks of things the UK will be the only other country than the US that has access to the source code - but then few countries want to integrate as many of their own weapons onto the aircraft as we do.

Hmmmn. You coming from Flanker, by any chance? ;)

You didn't actually forget to go to Flying Legends last weekend, did you? Twelve flying Spitfires, all of which were scrambled for the opening event and were beating up the airfield together? Don't tell me you missed that . . . . . . I'd be forced to post pretty pictures of them ;)

The Fighter Collection? It's run by Nick/Stephen Grey, is based at Duxford, and collects, restores, and displays warbirds. It rocks. Big time. http://fighter-collection.com/pages.php As a kind of sideline or hobby, they run Eagle Dynamics . . . . I don't recall whether they actually technically own the company or not, but it's something along those lines. If you go back to previous versions of the Lomac/Flanker series, you'll see that Indian trademark on the loading screens and cases. The Battle Sim is a development of Lomac that ED are trying to flog as professional training software, not just for casual simmers. They've had some success, IIRC - there's an A-10C training aid based on Lomac in progress, and they're trying to market it as a FAC training aid as well.

IIRC the Tomcat fuel dump pipe is offset to one side, so in theory you could light it with a single afterburner ;) Not sure how many aircraft can actually do it - the RAAF use it with the F-111 for apparently the single purpose of showing off! :D

They did - shockwave interaction forced it into the back of a Blackbird at a Mach-3-plus launch. Both crew ejected safely, tragically one drowned when he landed in the sea and his pressure suit filled with water. It's amazing what you can do with engine performance if it only has to last 15 minutes - frees you of quite a lot of hassles! It'd be rather expensive to throw away all the exotic alloys and variable-intake spike, but hey - what price superiority in war? Been reading up the Blackbird propulsions system recently, and it is actually pretty astonishing . . . . fr'instance, the J58 at Mach 3 produced very little of the thrust at that speed. The engine couldn't swallow the massflow at that speed, or deal with supersonic airflow on it's own - the variable geometry intakes decelerated the air to subsonic speeds and compressed it massively, then after a couple of stages of compression most of the air actually bypassed the engine and was fed directly into the afterburner. The result was mostly ramjet at Mach 3 - compressed in the intake and burned in the afterburner. The J58 helped, no doubting that . . . . but the majority of the thrust at Mach 3 was other trickery. Somewhere I've got a NASA study on fitting Nitrous Oxide to the SR71 (no, I'm not kidding), which reveals that actually the Blackbird had difficulty in breaking the sound barrier in level flight - had accelerate to supersonic speeds in a dive, after which the intakes started doing their job. The Nos was supposed to improve acceleration to Mach 3 with a payload on board. I'd expect a rocket booster for initial acceleration - you'd need something pretty mighty to provide the acceleration from standstill to Mach 3. Will do some more reading, sounds . . . . impressive. And technically rather challenging.

. . . . Broadly speaking I guess that's all accurate, yes, but it's still a significant amount of work . . . . . Less work than building an aircraft from scratch doesn't mean that it is easy, and neither does it mean that it is a priority . . . . Aircraft variants: The Su25UB is a two-seat, combat capable Su25. The Su25UT (upon which the Su25UTG is based) has had the armour and armament removed, although it retains the ability to carry fuel tanks on the pylons. Sukhoi attempted to get some sales of the Su25UT by renaming it the Su28 and marketing it as an L39 rival - however, they never managed to sell any and it never really made it as a trainer. Standard procedure in any training aircraft is for the student to sit in the front seat - where they'd sit normally, it's just easier for them to adapt from there. The rear seat position was provided for the instructor pilot, back when the dual control code was present. Added a bit more immersion for whoever was instructing at the time. Somewhere I've got cockpit pics for the Su25UTG, so I'd need to refer to them - IIRC it's at Su25 level rather than Su25T level, so HUD and avionics would be a no . . . . . Somewhat basic trainer, it's just there for acclimatisation to landing an aeroplane on a boat ;) (awaits any corrections from JJ_Alfa)

Errr, sortof. The Su25UTG is only there if you install either my Su25UTG mod, or the Naval Supermod - otherwise you've got the Su25T and Su25TM. The Su25T and Su25TM are both based on the Su25UB airframe . . . . . . that is to say, the two-seater with the rear cockpit full of fuel and avionics. A bit of file editing will put something approximating rear cockpit windows in and move the view to the rear seat. In v1.02 you could actually have dual controls over a network - I did some more file editing and managed to create a mod that swapped the Su27 for a dual-control Su27UB for flight/combat training. However, the code was then junked for Flaming Cliffs, so while it's all technically possible it'd require doing from scratch. Screenies:

Sigh . . . . This movie: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/189/ Which music is playing in the background?

Anyone? Mmn, guitar . . . . . . .