Pyroflash

Also, I don't get this talk about ED never developing higher fidelity versions of their sims. I mean, it isn't JUST the A-10C that was updated, we are also getting a new F-15C, and if memory serves me correctly, I am 100% sure that this aircraft was also in FC3. And not to mention that we are ALSO getting an Su-27SM, of which the Su-27S was in FC3 as well. There isn't any release date on these quite yet though, so you would be right in assuming that these will probably take quite a bit of time to get to us.

The A-10C modeled in this sim DOES carry the Mk-84.:huh:

Obviously ED is just doing this as a tease. The F-86H is going to be the new fighter. :D Please ED, please, say it's the F-15C.

Depends on how close the target is. If he is at the right distance, he might not have to pull very hard at all in order to defeat the missile simply because it is still in its boost phase and going at ludicrous speed. Then again, if he is running, then he is probably going to get eaten alive by the pressing aircraft if he turns to avoid the missile. Either way, you are right, he is dead. Assuming of course, that is wasn't some sort of devious master plan. :D

Naaaa.. People would just start to complain, however the missiles themselves are still substantially less threatening to fighter aircraft than an AIM-120C5. Now if people started flying around bombers, then yeah, I can see where it would get annoying if you have F-15C's at 45,000' doing 1.5 launching TWS foxes from 150 miles. Though you are going to have the same problem ANYWAYS when F-14A comes out, so you might as well get used to it.. Also, the F-22A has HMS. Even the suite 6C Eagles have HMS. In fact, I think pretty much every single fighter in service with the USAF and USN is compatible with either the Scorpion or JHMCS. Most are compatible with both. What you might be referring to, and would be correct in saying, is that the F-22A is not compatible (yet) with the HMDS/HMSS that is in use on the F-35 or EF-2000 respectively.

yeah, realistically, the F-15C is the best bet as the new module. New pit, new model, the animations for switches, etc. are already done. Meanwhile the hornet has a new 3d model, parts of which are still wrong AFAIK. By this logic the next module could just as well be an AH-64D.

Well, it took me until page 32 to quote this post :music_whistling:

Yes, the Kilrathi are well aware that Rapiers don't just fly around without a carrier close by :D

Errg. I should have gone to bed 30 minutes ago, but darn it if I wasn't just so excited. Oh well, enough of this nonsense, I am going to sleep now. :D

Well, you could, but it would be kind of pointless. To be honest though, the pics of their FSX harrier do look really nice.

I think that you misunderstood me somewhere along the line :D When I said aspects, I wasn't referring to aspect angles, but instead the management of certain parameters such as a specific launch distance, speed, angle, etc. that an AI cannot perform, while a player can. The idea was to have the player test against the AI, and that an AI vs. AI test would be next to meaningless because the AI can't adhere to specific fixed parameters that would prove the validity of such a test.

Naaa, just try to realize that real pilots use simulators to train too, and then they go out and kill people. There might be a progression, but they are two completely distinct ideas. However if the idea of a simulator is to simulate reality, and not a simulation, then I'd say that effectively, if you are having those feelings, then the simulator in question is probably doing its job right.

That's what I am trying to accomplish, and you are right that I should probably create a mission set, however I am not simply going to run this with AI as the test would then be next to useless as the AI can't manage the aspects like a player can. To be clear, the purpose of the test is to clear up, or bring to light any problems with the missiles doing unusual things like not managing energy, doing hard u-turns, and generally not flying in-envelope. It is also to get Pk numbers for different missiles under controlled circumstances against targets that are maneuvering at the SAME skill level each time to try and shed some light on the validity of some of the complaints that one missile has some distinct advantage over another. Sadly, the missions are going to have to wait until I get back on Monday. My schedule isn't exactly gaming friendly ATM.

Okay, so I am setting up a series of standardized tests using particular setups which are 1v1 only, usually with only one missile launch per test. The idea is to gather data on the Pk of these missiles using a controlled environment with particular parameters to avoid any bias as to the behavior of missiles. Track files/ACMIs are appreciated, but results of the test(s) that are performed will be generally satisfactory for this. The tests will be divided into two sets, offensive, and defensive. These should be self explanatory, and relatively easy to set up and perform. General setup is one OPFOR aircraft, either F-15C is play testing the Su-27/MiG-29S, or Su-27 when play testing the F-15C. The single bandit aircraft will be set at 400 knts, at 60 nm (using standard nautical mile of 6080'), and 25% fuel for all tests. Defensive bandits will NEVER have any guns, tanks, or missiles. The player aircraft will ONLY ever carry 25% fuel. Each test however, will have different parameters in parentheses, so pay close attention to these. When posting results, post the results of individual tests, and if the missile does not hit, list whether it was because it failed to continue tracking and went dumb, or because it lacked the energy to intercept the target. [AIM-120B] AIM-120B, Offensive: Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 40 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120B, Offensive: Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 30 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120B, Offensive: Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120B, Offensive: Start at 20,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. release lock at 10 miles AIM-120B, Offensive: Start at 20,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles maddog. [AIM-120C] AIM-120C, Offensive (bandit 40,000 @ 180 aspect): Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 40 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120C, Offensive: Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 30 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120C, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 40,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. AIM-120C, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 20,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. release lock at 10 miles AIM-120C, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 20,000' in an F-15C, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles maddog. [R-77] R-77, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 40,000' in a MiG-29S, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 40 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. R-77, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 40,000' in a MiG-29S, climb to 50,000', level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.2. Fox 3 at 30 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. R-77, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 40,000' in a MiG-29S, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. Maintain valid lock through missile flight. R-77, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 20,000' in a MiG-29S, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles using STT. release lock at 10 miles R-77, Offensive (red air at 20,000 traveling directly towards you, default options): Start at 20,000' in a MiG-29S, level off, and accelerate to Mach 1.0. Fox 3 at 20 miles maddog. defensive tests and semi-actives will come later, probably late Sunday, or manday (yes, manday, you know, for MEN) when I get back and have time. The semi-active tests will be different by nature, and won't be the exact same like the active tests are. I will also be adding tests where the bandit is running away at missile launch, to check PK on an aft aspect launch.

Okay, I am going to set up a run of standardized tests that multiple people can perform and try to replicate results. That way the community can get involved in getting raw data, and not just opinionated arguments. I'll make a thread in a few minutes to facilitate this, if anyone wants to join in to help, please do. However if you do decide to help, you must understand that it is going to be an honor system on accepting your results, and that I will be expecting you to both know exactly what you are doing, and to also fly in parameters for the tests. Edit: Thread up here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1648808#post1648808

I believe that he is trying to prove that the AIM-120C is overpowered when compared to any other missile. I don't know how he is going to go about accomplishing this, but I think this is what he is trying to suggest. Though honestly from experience, I really don't see the AIM-120C as some kind of unbeatable missile unless you just don't know what you are doing. If anything the AIM-120C should be more powerful, however I am not going to argue this as I have no compounding evidence to support my opinion.

Waaaahh.. The Hornet pulls too much alpha and shoots AIM-9X's at me, it's so cheap! :D

What's wrong, your missile run out of guidance power in the 1000s it took for the radar pulse to get back to earth? :D Also AFAIK HOJ does work, but only with the AIM-7, AIM-120, and R-77. However normally one would wait for burn through to fire these weapons anyways.

I kind of want someone to do an An-2 module.

Green, but only if it can be done accurately.

I'd personally go for an Ivy proc (I5-3570), and also get rid of that Thermaltake case. They aren't bad from what I hear, but I am spoiled with toolless cases. Though I suppose that feature isn't really a deal breaker if you aren't building it yourself, which BTW, isn't difficult if you can read English. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115233

No, this is going to be great for Eagle drivers! The MiG pilots are going to be overjoyed by their new TWS and completely miss my AMRAAMs :D

And what exactly do you know for a fact? Do you know, with absolute certainty what ED is thinking, or what restrictions they are under? Do you even have a clue as to what 3rd party restrictions are in place, for any of the devs? No, you can only speculate. Legitimate concerns, but with absolutely zero proof to back them up with. You claim western bias? Where is the proof that western aircraft are better? Where is the proof that they are getting better treatment? Where is the proof that ED ISN'T developing some sort of Russian aircraft? Exactly, you have none, so please, kindly voice your concerns, but no one likes to listen to a whiner. Again, no one is telling you to NOT speak up if something is wrong. They only ask that if you believe something to be incorrect, that you provide irrefutable evidence in your favor (i.e. official documentation). If you have some access to unclassified Su-27 documents of some sort, I'm pretty sure that people here would love to have them. However keep in mind that documents which might be available outside of Russia, might not be documents that ED is approved to use in a sim due to NOFORN restrictions or somesuch. Also be aware of the restrictions imposed upon the material that relate to your use of it, or you could wind up with men in black suits at your door :D

And yes, from what I have tested so far, the AIM-54C does not seem to bleed energy, like, at all, thankfully you have plenty of time to get into the notch when you see an F-14A shoot one at you.

No, you simply fail to accept that your gripes are ACTUALLY being fixed, that some of them aren't even valid, that these 'spammers' are actually fairly easy to defeat, especially with the terrible energy bleeding of the 120's, and that for the most part, this isn't even a problem with experienced F-15C VPilots who have probably learned that SPAMRAMMING isn't an effective tactic, and will at least make them a mission kill. Basically, its only the A-A missiles that got an AFM. IIRC all of the player launched missiles got it, and so did most of the AI ones. Edit: I'll PM you a list in a bit, in addition to adding it on to a post here. Edit#2: The following is a conclusive current list of missiles with AFM, remember, all missile AFM's are a WIP, and are subject to change. R-550 Mica-IR Mica-RF Super-530F R-40T R-40R R-24R R-24T R-60 R-33 R-27R R-27ER R-27T R-27ET R-73 R-77 AIM-7M RIM-7 AIM-9M AIM-9P AIM-54C AIM-120B AIM-120C 5V55