Pyroflash

I once tried landing on the grass with the P-51D. It ended rather spectacularly (I crashed).

I agree, you should take your inspiration from this guy. His videos are so much more intense and immersing :doh:

Yeah, plus it is a dual GPU setup. Terrible for DCS.

I can only comment on the 680, as I do not own the 670, but so far, it has been a really good card. It runs fairly cold (32C-40C) most times, and has never come up with any problems, or performance issues. It is also the first card in Nvidia's lineup with a boost clock, where the target performance can be instantly increased by up to 15% or more if applications are more demanding for short periods of time. It also does extremely well for itself on power consumption. It's not exactly a light weight fighter in that respect, but it isn't a sumo wrestler either like the Fermi cards were. It is also (for once) the quietest thing in my case. My old AMD card sounded like a jet engine. Great for flight sim immersion, but terrible for trying to get to sleep at night. Basically, yes, buy one, buy one right meow. I've only has one REAL problem, my first card was defective, but EVGA replaced it within a week. Since then I have not had any issues running the latest drivers. Note: I only have the base 2GB version.

Huh? the F-15C is already on par with the Russian jets in WVR combat. An AIM-9X would simply be overkill.

Ah, that makes sense, maybe it got stuck in your eye socket when you turned it back around?

Where have you been, FC3 needs you!:devil:

What you are suggesting is already implemented via ATO's. Some are public, others are private. An example of this can be seen here (link coming as soon as I can find it).

Cool :thumbup:

I regret not flying myself to Oshkosh this year. That drive sucked.

Oh, so that's how they do the self-destruct! :D

Oh, come on, that's not fair. It's not as if you gave anything up not playing FC3, except for maybe FC3 itself. But that is irrelevant because it isn't out yet. Really when it comes right down to it, the F/A-18C isn't any more likely an aircraft than an F-16C/CJ, F-15C, or even an F/A-18E for that matter. They are all in service, all have comparable levels of classification, and are all equally doable (Yes, even the F/A-18E, which, if you look at it, really isn't any more advanced than the newer F-16C's or F-15C's. If you can't get enough reliable data, move down a lot number until you can.). Just because you are making an F/A-18E sim, it doesn't mean it has to be an F/A-18E blk III lot 30 sim (although it is probably true that people wouldn't appreciate some of the lower lot numbers, which, lets face it, are OLD).

Are you forcing the using Nvidia's 3d settings, or the game's? Another thing to consider is your CPU temp. How hot is it running at the time? If it is running too hot, performance will suffer big time.

ED are hardly independent. They make products for TFC, their publisher, who then publishes these wonderful products. TFC are probably the ones behind the procurement of ED's military business side. Of course I could be wrong about this. Not much information going around about the other end of the stick. For all I know, ED could be working on a new B-2A sim. At any rate, nobody really knows what kind of contractual obligations TFC/ED has with Ubisoft over the Lockon IP, but judging by the fact that a lot of the assets were re-used from lomac when going into DCS, it is likely that the obligations to Ubisoft only extend as far as the package as a whole.

These heavy bombers fly out of airbases that are well out of country. B-2A's for example, fly all the way from the U.S. (Whiteman AFB) to wherever they are going to hit. Aircraft that are more range limited (such as the B-1B) probably operate from somewhere in Europe, but I can't say for sure. I know B-52H's are stationed everywhere from Europe to the Pacific Rim. Also -1 for adding LAIRCMS into the large jets. It would be like easy mode for missile dodging. Just fly straight and level. Plus I can see it now. "Look at this video on youtube of my R-73 losing track of this transport! FIX MISSILES ASAP, THEY ARE BROKEN!".

It's not just about what you can find on the internet. Technically an F-15C shouldn't be any harder to model given the proper sources than an F-16C or F/A-18E given the models being considered are comparatively old. e.g. Blk 50/52 F-16C's or lot 20 or below SH's. Even an older model F-15E shouldn't be too difficult as the documentation is out there.

Really depends. A lot of the time, you really have to be careful, because the poll itself can introduce bias, as well as the sample group being absurdly skewed in some cases. So there is no point in really limiting to Senior Members. If a poll does end up having validity, then the average posting age of the usergroup creating that poll is not going to affect the accuracy of it.

No, the gods came down and gave Nate his own settings for the forums. No one, not even he, can explain it :D

Yeah, I think at least for an AFAC type thing, it would be a much welcome sight. Either that or a Super Tucano. Though the MQ-9 can stay aloft a lot longer than the soupy toucan can.

If only they were "mechanics" at all, then they might actually have some insight into what's going on.

Combat pedals, they are really comfortable, and more closely represent what you would be dealing with in a real aircraft. e.g. the transition and how I place my feet on them is very similar. Plus like in real aircraft, you don't get the tendency to press the toe brakes when you move the rudders on crosswind landings/TO's (heels not being on the pedals and all).

That's Chester Bennington, not EDGE :doh: Edit: Sorry, "Mr. The EDGE".

Where'd you get the idea that it is going to be a multirole aircraft? All Wags has said is that it will be a U.S. Fixed Wing Fighter. And the F-15C is a multirole aircraft. It can carry gravity bombs.. -4 years from now..

Looks really good. Can't wait to fly her.

Bullseye calls are input using the OFFSET mode on your CDU. This is because they are points that are offset (BR) from a fixed point e.g. the bulls.