britgliderpilot

Precisely - differential collective control is the answer. This causes problems when you're not pulling any collective, though.

Could be achieved, but bloody hell it'd be time consuming . . . . how many vehicles are there in the game now? A new 3D model and damage model for all of them . . . . *wince*. It'd be fantastic to see, would really add to the game - but it'd take quite some time to do.

"The" U2 landing? ;) They actually operated one from a carrier for a limited amount of time for a specific mission. You'd need some talent for that job . . . The Jaguar M was a prototype built to test the principle of adapting it to a carrierborne strike aircraft - not a normal Jaguar. Same for the F-111B.

I know there's at least some atmospheric variation in the Black Shark flight model - did a bit of experimentation with high altitude take-offs with, um, interesting results . . . Interestingly, I haven't yet seen a torque gauge in the Ka50 cockpit. I take it the Apache does have one? And you most definitely still need yaw controls for the Ka50. Yes, there's more or less no inherent torque in the hover or normal flight . . . which is fine for only as long as you want to fly in a straight line ;)

The start? Please observe the little gold square, top centre . . . . ;) I'd like to think of it as a long-delayed return to the True Path Towards Enlightenment . . . . Welcome back, Stormin!

At present, no. It'd be something nice to see, but don't expect it - TeamSpeak currently functions well enough running side-by-side. And those who don't want to have to tune their radios in manually and suffer radio failures from battle damage might not like direct voice chat ;) I like the idea, though, will put a request in.

Well a Predator 3D model has been created and displayed . . . but whether it'll make it into Black Shark, and any functionality of it . . . . no idea.

It's for bashing tanks and ground units, simple as that. The biggest threat is MANPADS - they're very fast and guided. However, tanks and armoured fighting vehicles use laser rangefinders to help aim their main weapons . . . . and a 105mm or 30mm projectile can really spoil your day. . . . and before we get into that, yes a tank shell CAN shoot down a helicopter at low crossing velocities. Like if you just popped up over a hill in front of it. However, the longest range kill from a tank main gun is 4km (by a British Challenger in GW1). The Ka50 ranges out to 8-10km with the Vikhr . . . so you stay in stand-off range and clobber them with that. The same applies for Shilkas, Vulcans, Tunguskas, Avengers . . . . if you can see them coming, you can outrange them. Tracers are easy to spot and avoid if you have your eyes open, you can throw out an awful lot of flares if you see a MANPADS coming . . . then you can run away and relocate and your target can't. The 30mm autocannon is very accurate and very useful against IFVs and APCs, with AP for armoured vehicles and HE for soft. The S-8 is a bit better on that front. That leaves the S-13 for buildings, emplacements and so forth. I wouldn't use the gunpods for anything other than soft targets. Radar-guided missiles . . . well they're generally restricted to area SAMs and fighters. If you get engaged by a Patriot or S-300 . . . . well you're doing something very, very wrong. You should be NOE for all kinds of reasons . . . they're just not going to see you. And sure, if a fighter dedicated itself to scouring ground terrain for attack helicopters, it might be able to pick you out from ground clutter and destroy you. But I rather suspect that a fighter would have other things on it's mind - strike packages and other fighters. How often does a CAP fly along examining the ground in minute detail?

Oh, you'll never be able to run Black Shark natively on Mac OSX. It's just not going to happen. But the new Macs with Intel processors can dual-boot to Windows. So you'd have OSX for everyday stuff, and then boot up Windows to play your games. It boils down to hardware and cost - can a fixed-spec Mac run a demanding piece of software, and are you willing to pay the premium over a PC ;)

Well the official website doesn't tie up with the aircraft modelled - I can't offer any explanation for that. The UV-26 can theoretically be fitted with chaff cartridges instead of flares - but in the case of the Ka50 modelled in Black Shark, all the cartridges are flares. Trust me, I haven't overlooked a chaff dispenser command somewhere ;)

Mmmn. There's a problem with that - the Ka50 in Black Shark absolutely does not have chaff dispensers . . . . it has flares, and that's it. A big mistake maybe, but it's the decision the Russians have taken with the real aircraft. There just isn't a RWR present in the Ka50. If you get shot down by a radar-guided AAA gun in Black Shark, you're doing something very wrong - even without the RWR. MANPADS are a far greater threat.

I've historically been a dedicated Windows supporter - but with the horror story that is Vista and some first-hand experience of the superb everyday environment that is OSX . . . . I'm actually really, really tempted. The Core 2 Duo Macs have the CPU power and the RAM to run Black Shark - my brother's got a Macbook Pro as fast as my desktop, for god's sake - but where they start to fall down is the graphics card. They're not quite gaming systems yet. I'd guess BS would run on a Mac, if you dual-booted to Windows . . . . but you'd probably throw away some eyecandy. It's a shame, really - as an everyday computer I do now genuinely believe that an iMac is better, and the cost can go hang. But they don't have gaming graphics cards. A Mac with a case is too big a premium over a PC just for OSX, too ;)

Hey GA - JimMack had Edge as one of the videos he was looping at the RC Sims show today. It was mostly about FSX . . . we got quite a few FSX bods staring open-mouthed in disbelief. I think they liked it ;)

FC's a niche game - as a flightsim it'll always sell lower than other games. It's up to ED to decide whether any sales they'll lose through having StarForce are more significant than sales they'll lose through piracy. ED seem to think the second number will be bigger. So StarForce still makes sense.

Unfortunately for it's detractors, Starforce is a very, very effective antipiracy tool. As far as I know, Flaming Cliffs has never been cracked. That's a big deal. Anyway, all you have to do to get a new set of activations is come online and ask . . . ED are pretty good at giving them out to people who've actually bought the game ;) Exactly why did you want it removing again?

I'm going to support the military on this one . . . . I think they've got a pretty clear idea of the ethical nightmare of allowing a robot to attack on it's own. Identifying potential targets is one thing - but I believe you'll always have to have a human in the loop to press the "Kill" button. Yes, it'll cost more to have a crewman on hand taking the decisions . . . . but that cost is nothing compared to the R&D, purchase, and running costs of a manned aircraft over a UAV. There's no reason to fully automate them.

I believe someone's hacked DX10 onto XP, but yes, broadly speaking you're right. At the moment, I wouldn't recommend upgrading to Vista. It's still an OS in it's infancy and needs some stuff ironing out. I love the way it looks, and some people are reporting good things about game performance . . . . but to me the way just seems fraught with too much hassle (especially with drivers) for it to be worthwhile. However . . . next time I install Windows it'll be Windows Vista. Even if that's caused by a catastrophic motherboard failure tomorrow ;) Vista's got great visuals - it's copying OSX, but that's like copying Ferrari's styling . . . no bad thing! - it's got DX10, it's the future. I'd rather put up with some initial hassles than the even bigger hassle of installing Windows twice.

Implying that the supercruise range for the Raptor stretches significantly above Mach 1.5? ;) I hadn't heard about it being much more . . . . which is interesting . . . but not really surprising, that thing's spectacular.

Yep - but I'd have thought it would be less draggy to fit a fairing over the intake. Cheers for the info on the 5th hardpoint X-Man :)

Given that the conditions considered were explicitly stated in the first post, I thought stating how it was affected by varying air density would be unnecessary. Re-read my post - it tells you that a missile will accelerate to that speed, not that it'll suddenly fly at that speed and keep flying at that speed forever. Did I forget to say it'd start decelerating when the motor stopped? In fact - and this is a good one, you'll like this - it's impossible to accelerate to Mach 7 in a vacuum. Taking the post as a whole, rather than skipping through it . . . I still see nothing wrong. Likelihood of a missile reaching Mach 7? Slim. But I lean towards the second case rather than the first.

I don't see where either of my answers contradicted Newton's laws . . . . and after positing that both my statements are untrue you seem to have stated exactly the same thing a little later on. Care to state your case a little more clearly? ;)

I'm with Goya. It depends what is limiting the missile's top speed - whether it's aerodynamics or motor burn time. If aerodynamics are limiting the missile top speed, the missile will accelerate away from the aircraft and when thrust from the motor = drag, stop accelerating. It'll then cruise along at that speed until the motor burns out, at which point it will complete the flight on it's stored kinetic energy. If motor burn time is limiting the missile's top speed (i.e. there's so much thrust that drag won't build up to similar levels until silly speeds), then the missile will just keep on accelerating for as long as the motor burns. If Case 1 - Aerodynamically limited top speed - is true, then the missile will only ever accelerate to it's nominal top speed, call it Mach 4. If Case 2 - Motor Burn Time limited top speed - is true, then the missile could end up at Mach 7 from an aircraft launching at Mach 3. . . . . but without thrust information and drag coefficients (which vary going from supersonic to hypersonic, IIRC), you simply can't tell. I personally would lean towards Case 2 . . . . but I have precisely zero information to support that! edit - Had better add that the aerodynamic limit is always present . . . launching from an aircraft at Mach 3, you might find where it is.

And it's all pretty good, but about this bit . . . . I know what you mean, but I think you've got it down wrong ;) You can't give a Mach number relative to the ground. Mach number is always specific to the fluid through which the object is travelling, which is subject to variations like pressure and density. So Mach 1 at high altitude will be at a lower true airspeed than Mach 1 at ground level. However, lift is a function of air density in the other direction - so you'll need a higher true airspeed to produce the same amount of lift at high altitude. Example - the U2 flying at 70,000 feet could turn so that the inner wingtip would be travelling below stall speed, and the outer wingtip would be producing Mach waves. Freaky, no?

That's interesting. I've seen it done before, but the previous images I've found have had an aerodynamic fairing over the intake. I can't believe they're actually running the engine . . . . I'd like to know more about that. Does the 747 have a fifth hardpoint down there?

AFAIK, the datalink does not include ABRIS data. There is a way to pass position data, but only a single point - not a flightplan. How you deal with that in terms of approach to target is up to you.