Pyroflash

"And he looked at his wife without words to say, she looked right back at him wiping tears away. He said someday we'll be okay, someday." Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist. But, it is a really good song.

You'd do it even if he said no. :D

Yeah, I meant that the C Eagle should have gotten 229's IRL. Although it's nice that your version of the SE is getting the upgraded ones to offset its heavier nature.

I've seen many Mustang starts IRL that do not involve much ground crew interaction other than two or three which used ground power. I have never seen any ground crew touch the props on a Mustang during a start. I assume that there is some combat consideration for doing so, which precludes that of the well-maintained operation of most civilian owned Mustangs.

When you arm the ejection seat, you need to pop open the covers to move the switches. This is what those commands are referring to.

Serial #: 13343 Location: USA Purchased: November 2012

OOOooHHHh an AT-802, where's Ethereal?

X-47B cat launch

Nice, looks a bit like the X-47B. Also, a bit late, but.. X-47B cat launch http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70864 video

Fixed Edit: Although I kind of wish that the Eagle got the 229's.

Yes, self centering would be highly appreciated, and to be honest, the helicopter and fixed wing bases should be totally separate product lines as to enhance the realism of each. Ultimately though, I would be expecting TM Warthog level of quality out of any future stick I buy. Anything less, and well, to me it just wouldn't be good enough. I realize that you guys aren't a huge company, and likely can't afford to do much actual product testing with real world counterparts, however most everything should be doable.

An F-15C, please, please, please, please, please, please, please. Edit: I understand the ease of making the cyclic control interchangeable with rotary wings, but what about the collective/throttle? A throttle's design and function is quite a bit different from that of a collective (mainly because you "pick up" a collective, and "push forward" a throttle..

Looking good, if I was at all into helicopters, I would definitely buy these. And the interchangeable system is really a great idea for people who like to fly with realistic setups, but don't want to build anything themselves.

it is semi-plug & play, some switches will come pre-assigned, but you will probably want to re-do all of your mappings regardless.

Cool cool, will be following this one closely. Assuming there is anything to follow that is.

No one here has any proof of anything other than what they read in a paper. I doubt very many of us are global markets economists, so in lieu of that, the best we can do is speculate. Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to phrase it as if that's not how the system normally works. I was just laying it out in reference to carrier groups specifically so people can understand the why there is a need for more than one carrier.

Sadly, we live in reality, so 100 carriers is not a feasible thing. The U.S. carrier groups fly in support of NATO operations and humanitarian aid missions. As such, it is important to ensure that they are able to be in position to assist in the completion of the assigned mission even if one or more carriers are down, which is an all too frequent occurrence. They also have to be mission ready even if one or more carriers is already sailing under a mission. Thus the reason for all 11 of them. In addition, these carrier groups are constantly cycling readiness states, with different crews working up to fit deployment schedules so that people can take a break every once and a while. This also gives the ships a chance to undergo refits and maintenance so that they don't fall apart from old age (The oldest of which is the U.S.S. Enterprise, which has been sailing since 1961. That makes it the second oldest actively serving warship in the U.S. Naval inventory. Right after the U.S.S. Constitution, which has been sailing since 1798 ).

Yes, actually. Airfields such as Bagram are extremely expensive to develop, costing the better part of a couple billion to start, then you have to tack on doing this in potentially unforgiving theaters, with nightmarish logistical problems, and limited support. Once it is built, you have to secure it, develop it, maintain it, supply it, and operate it. None of these things are even remotely close to cheap. With a carrier, the initial costs may be a lot higher, but carriers are a lot more defensible, and have the advantage of being mobile, which can count for quite a bit when you are talking about an area deterrent. Because carriers always have mutual support, and can move, they aren't really as easy to sink as you think they are. Also a carrier going 30+ kts is going to get somewhere infinitely faster than an island is. All of the time. Carriers are a force deterrent. Saying "I can hit you anywhere, anytime, with a full airborne force" does a lot to pressure people into inaction. Nobody wants to risk doing something if the odds aren't in their favor. Sometimes eyes in the sky are needed as much as cruise missiles. As much as satellites, GPS, and guided missile systems are nice, they can be easily fouled by a number of sneaky tactics that might not be apparent without some HUMINT over there to drop an LGB. The enemy knows this too, which makes a carrier (possibly) a hell of a lot scarier to them than a submarine which may or may not be sitting in range of their shore. $10 B buys a lot fewer aircraft when you have to develop infrastructure to support them. Especially when you are talking about stealth aircraft. And again, stop thinking about defensive action purely in terms of direct combat. It is flawed thinking and will get you nowhere.

No, but it is straighter, which makes it better :P

I'm also curious to see what kind of modifier this actually adds to their current deployments. Much like with the Kuznecow, having a carrier is nice, but having only one means that you cannot deploy in more than one place at once. And if your carrier goes down for any reason, your deployment schedules are pretty much buggered until you can get it up again. Much like what happened to good ol' Charlie in France. Although the French have a completely indigenous, newer, and significantly larger platform to work with.

This is kind of tough, because there are 5 different model names/numbers being represented here in this picture. They are the: A, S, SD, SMT, and K. I have a tough time thinking that Razbam is doing 5 different models of the same aircraft, although it is possible that the reason both S and SD BP's are being used is that there is basically no external difference between the two.

Maybe it is just because there is more information available in the public domain about semi-modern western aircraft than their eastern counterparts. Of course, I wouldn't know personally, I've never tried to look for manuals pertaining to the Su-27SM or MiG-29SMT. Edit: Also, don't start with talking to GG about supposed 'Western Bias'. Unless you want to get an earful about how bad the FC3 Eagle is of course :P

It depends, does this friend want to use any SATA 6GB/s hardware (Will determine whether Intel or ASUS will be an appropriate mobo, there is nothing wrong with either, though I prefer a first party SATA controller rather than deal with the third party controllers ASUS packages with its boards nowadays.)? BTW, the 3570k is a good chip, though I would go with a little less RAM, probably around 16GB.

If you are flying a Russian Su-27, you wouldn't be using RVV-AE's anyway..

Who says that there aren't already 3rd parties working on a WWII release?