Pyroflash

No, AFAIK, none of these are bugs except for the missile drag at high altitudes. It may be worth looking at how aerodynamics work with different layers of the atmosphere. I don't know that it is wrong right now though. There really isn't much drag that high up to interact with the missile. Though gravity should still accelerate the missile downward at a steady 1g.

No, It's a known engine limitation that has been in place since basically, well, basically FC2. The stuff disappearing at altitude thing that is. If you do it with a manned fighter, the game crashes. As far as everything getting darker, well, actually, it's an optical illusion. Since there is no atmosphere up that high to reflect/refract light, everything gets absurdly bright. As a result, your eyes pupils contract in order to exclude most of the light. As a result, everything you look at looks much, much darker than it is in absolute terms. This is one very important aspect of space travel that people don't really understand from pictures, which don't care about how bright things are in absolute terms. This is also the reason why space suit helmets have absurdly silvered helmet covers. So yeah, it actually would get really dark for you up there, but you wouldn't really notice it, because everything would be really bright out. It's kind of like walking from a dimly lit basement out onto a clear day on the Miami beach during the heat of summer. Except 10 times brighter.

Just some small corrections and additional considerations.

That's what I like about being a pilot. You get the window seat every time. :D BTW, a small FPS drop when using TIR is normal. I dunno about 20 FPS, it does seem a bit much. I would lock your TIR camera (F9) and see if your FPS goes back up. If it does, then your FPS drop is simply as a result of your looking around more than before. Also, good choice on the Warthog. It is a very good high end mass market stick. Great choice for precision flying, and versatile enough to be used with any platform.

They all had their strengths, but I'd take a P-51D over any of the competition. Higher, faster, more range. Works really well offensively, especially in an escort role. For interception, I would take a Dora. Nothing to scoff at there. For forward defense, the Spitfire, hands down. For a fighter-bomber, the P-47D was really the only choice on this list. I don't really know much about the K4.

Nautical miles work really well for air navigation because of their basis on how the lat-long system works. Having other numbers in feet just helps the conversion process. Trying to do quick 60 - 1 calculations for stuff like descents is much harder to do when you have to do the work for getting the range in nautical miles, and then have to convert it into metric. Having it all in the same system keeps from having to convert measurements, which takes time. Kilometers and meters might work better in scientific fields, but a coordinated system of measurements that I can use easily in conjunction with my navigation tools is better for quick determinations and ease of use. See above, the Lat - Long system is divided up into minutes, 60 of which make up a single degree. The physical length of a minute of distance is equal to about 6080 feet. This is often rounded down to 6000' for reasons of practicality (rounded down only for quick maths, your flight computer will use the correct value for this distance out to several decimal places). Ever wonder why the 60 - 1 rule works? It's not by accident.

Yup, FTIT is the reliable indicator for engine operation now. Custom curves are the best bet, although it does get quite annoying because you have to balance out the idle and mil power with the curves. So far, trial and error is going to be your best bet.

I wasn't going to buy this, but I'm sold on it now. I'll probably still never touch it, but the way I see it, I am supporting the development of better targets. :D

It is a great aircraft for what it does. Does it have flaws? Yes. So does the F-15C, for that matter, or the F-16C, or the Superbug. Aircraft are always a tradeoff. You will get advanced capability at the expense of being good at other things. I'd argue that with the proliferation of more and more advanced Russian IADS systems across the globe, America is going to need weapons like this more and more.

What he is trying to mean is that success in a situation where resources are at a minimum REQUIRES a certain amount of creativity. If you have creativity AND adequate resources, however, then the product can only get better as your production capability increases. There is a really good reason why companies like Microsoft and Intel are pack leaders in their industries. They have resources and creativity, which is why a CONSIDERABLE percentage of their budget is spent on R&D activities. Without the chunk of change that lets them operate within their current efficient structure though, they would be hurting.. BAD.

Generally, there is no reason to coast around at that altitude. You are going to be going super slow, both in CAS and TAS, and you are dead if anyone manages to catch you at that altitude. My advice would be to sprint and climb up to somewhere around 40,000' to 60,000', launch a missile, and then immediately descend back to a useful altitude. If you feel the need to coast at a high altitude going super sonic, then I might suggest somewhere around 40,000'. It keeps you out of contrails, plus still allows you to actually maneuver around a little (Your turn circle is still going to be the size of Chicago).

Yes, typically, go in STT when you get closer. It is VERY difficult to re-acquire targets inside 10 miles using LRS or TWS RADAR modes. It is probably better to use an Auto Acquisition (AAQ) mode such as auto guns, vertical scan (VS), or boresight. Even better, use your eyes. If your RADAR is really screwed, worst case scenario is you mad dog an AIM-120 at him (firing without a lock, provided he is within the ASE circle). It will still track inside of 10 miles or so, and should kill him regardless.

Yeah, I don't know, but both the power and turn rate/radius curves are better for the F-22A than just about any aircraft out there. About the only aircraft that can match it in a dogfight is the Typhoon, and only under certain conditions. Now granted, the Raptor is a tad more 'conventional' when compared to the Tiffy and -35, and thus lacks a lot of the cooler gizmos like voice interaction and the JHMCS/EO-DAS systems. It doesn't really matter though, because the 22 was designed to shoot down aircraft, and apart from the Tiffy, there really is no other aircraft that can even come close to matching its capabilities in that arena. That's impressive in its own right, but they are different aircraft designed to do different things. The F-22A is a stealth, supercruise capable, LPI RADAR having, AMRAAM truck of an air-air fighter. The Tiffy is really a great plane for pretty much anything, which makes it a great choice for nations like the U.K., and honestly Australia, which don't have, or can't budget for such specialization. The F-35 is a whole different beast. It is a product designed to be easily maintainable in a wide range of conditions, by many countries, with supply lines across the globe. Of course it is going to be expensive. Let's step back from the cost though. If I were a strike pilot, I would love the F-35, and here's why. 1. Decent air to air capability. It won't be winning any turn radius fights against a flanker, but it does have the ability to sneak in and fire AMRAAMs from extremely high PK positions where conventional fighters cannot approach undetected. 2. Unrivaled strike capability. Where factors such as SAM coverage, ROE, mission profile, and covering assets might restrict other packages, the F-35 can still fly. 3. Internal payloads. A lot of the numbers given for other fighters are given in a 'clean' configuration. That is to say, weapons and pylons are removed in order to give a picture of the aircraft's best possible performance. The F-35 carries its payload internally, so it doesn't have to worry about these skewed numbers. It is clean ALL OF THE TIME, even when fully loaded. Yes, there is added weight, but there is no increased drag from external stores (unless you turn it into a bomb truck with the external pylons). 4. The best situational awareness of any aircraft, ever. Period. Unarguable. Fully integrated systems allow you to select a target with any one of a number of systems and slave the others to it for a better picture. EO-DAS gives you a picture of the battlefield No holes or restrictions, and can detect, target, and track enemy fighters, missiles, and ground targets from a considerable distance away. The RWR, RADAR, and ECM, are all extremely capable from what I can gather, and are all integrated together. Now about the Super Hornet. Good for what it was designed to do. It is a very reliable, and capable multi-role strike fighter. This does not mean that it is a beast at air to air like the Eagle. Far from it in fact. It is, however, quite a good choice if you cannot afford, for whatever reason, to specialize when it comes to airframes. It isn't a push over either. Yes it bleeds speed like a stuck pig, but it is still a very capable aircraft, especially when it comes to defending itself during a mission, or filling the requirements of a force constricted by either space, or budget. The Su-35S would be an awesome choice if it had any integration at all with western systems. It can't fire AMRAAMs, it can't drop GBUs, its datalink is wholly incompatible with the L16 system. In an integrated battlefield, without additional integration and testing which would cost billions of dollars, the Su-35S would be a gimped bird. So, Australia needs an off the shelf solution that can operate effectively using available Western systems. This leaves basically: a. The Rafale. b. The Super Hornet. c. The Tiffy. d. The F-35. e. The Block 52+ or 60 Viper with dorsal tanks. Those are, really, your only choices. This list gets narrowed down even further when you start considering compatibility with existing infrastructure. Basically, USAF planes are out the window. So that leaves European and USN aircraft. Once you remove the Viper from that list you get four extremely capable planes. Honestly though, apart from political considerations, considering Australia has no Navy, I would think they'd take the Tiffy over any of the rest. It seems to me that it would do the best job in the current climate for what Australia needs. In the end though, *shrug*, I'm not really an expert on what Australia needs either. Australia might need a fifth generation stealth capable strike aircraft to fill some role. I have no idea. I'll give the Russians one thing though, their fighters have always been cheap and effective for low intensity conflicts. They pioneered some aspects of high alpha aerodynamics in the early days with the Flanker, but after the wall came down, their technology has been extremely lackluster. I'll wager that it'll be at least a decade, if not more, until they come up with a serious match for the F-22A. If they even decide to go with such a specialized project. Likely they will do what they've always done and go for more generalized export capable packages like the PAK-FA.

What does that have anything to do with it? There are no plans for retiring the F-16 fleet. Also the A-10 could make use of a HMCS just about as well as an F-16 could..

You don't.

3 movies. Original, Continuum, and Ark of Truth. ;)

I'd watch it, it just needs to have a realistic feel to it for once. The original series was cheesy beyond belief. The most recent attempt was better, but limited by the fact that there was too much drama and conspiracy. Let's just have a movie about a military force fighting a bunch of humanoid robots for survival. K? Character development doesn't need random, out of place naughty scenes. Plot and drama doesn't mean that everyone has to be at each others' throats. Yes, I think we understand that everyone is stressed out over this. For the love of god though, you'd think these people would be trained well enough to listen to their captain for at least the span of a single episode. Which, after the first season, practically never happened. Everyone was just constantly bickering. it got sort of annoying (make that really annoying) until everyone finally calmed down at the end of the last season.

No. EtherealN has it right on this one. Generally speaking, corner speed is the speed in which you can achieve the best combination sustained turn rate and radius for a given altitude. What you are thinking of is a completely separate theory on excess energy curves that allows you to pull instantaneous rates up to a lower speed. While this is useful information, it is definitely NOT corner speed.

15 degree minimum normal NWS traverse limit, up to 45 degrees with maneuver mode. Pressing and holding the paddle switch in the real aircraft will also disable NWS and allow a full 360 degrees of nose wheel traverse

High PRF is good for high aspect targets. When in close, I prefer to use interleaved, or medium if they are med-low aspect. same rules apply for copters.

The A-10C is equipped with an optical missile warning system that is different from the RWR. Thus, it detects launches of ANY type of missile anywhere within its detection range, regardless of what that missile is targeting.

Yeah, spinning rotors make up a huge percentage of any aircraft's RCS. This applies for turbine fans, and applies doubly so for helicopters.

1. Helicopters have unrealistic RADAR detection ranges. This was done for game balancing purposes. Nobody understands, but presumably it was intended as a minor aid to helo pilots in multiplayer servers. 2. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the HE power of the missile and where it impacts. It's nothing you can impact directly, except maybe try getting a face shot.

Agreed. I think that it is quite weird.