Pyroflash

You need to find a Tim Hortons with free Wi-Fi. :D

PAC was part of the -1 upgrade, not necessarily only in the Charlie PE upgrade. There shouldn't be a difference since the system is fundamentally the same. Unless they updated some of the rate control logic in the PAC autopilot.

With significant modification, yes. That being said, a COIN aircraft would probably find a nice home here in the DCS environ.

War thunder is fun, especially the lower tiers. The upper tiers tend to be not much more challenging, except that you tend to die faster from all of the cannons flying around. You'll go crazy if you stare at the xp bar past level 8 though.

FYI, as far as the game is concerned, the Stinger is actually a little more powerful than the IGLA. The problem is that the Stinger will NOT detonate on a glancing or passing shot. The IGLA will. This behavior is actually correct. THe Stinger's only form of warhead fuzing is time delayed impact. It actually has to hit a target to do any damage. The IGLA-S, however, has magnetic proximity fuzing which allows it to inflict collateral damage, even in near miss scenarios. Other than that, and average velocity, the Stinger is actually better at doing things than the IGLA. Even the seeker on the Stinger has a better range than the IGLA (in game).

Or maybe you could recognize the difference between trolling and constructive criticism. Aviation is all about precision. If you come in here spreading misinformation about a subject that you have little to no actual experience with, of course subject experts are going to correct you. All that means is that there are people here who have the desire for information being spread to be correct and useful. Sometimes the way they convey these corrections isn't exactly all that sensitive and politically correct, but it's something that you will have to get over eventually. People with real world experience in aviation fields tend to have a LOT of pride in their knowledge. They may, at times, be a bit hostile when you directly contradict that (even if you don't personally acknowledge the mistake, or even realize that one was made).

Good thing I don't have a wife. The downside is that I also don't have a Rift.. Thank you Wags, I'm sure that a lot of people are/will be very happy about this news.

^ just to be clear, this is because DCS eats up a lot of memory, with ~2 GB available, DCS might run slow, or just crash outright. The 32-bit issue is a matter of available memory allocation space. The inherent restriction of a 32-bit computer operating system is that it can only allocate a hard maximum of 4 gigabytes of RAM. 32-bit applications are most often further software-limited to use a maximum of 3 GB RAM. This becomes a problem because, while DCS only uses ~418 MB of RAM on menu, it QUICKLY jumps up to upwards of 3.2 GB of RAM usage (depending on the aircraft being flown and resources loaded) in any given mission. With an open OS using a good chunk of that, allocated (commit) memory can run pretty high, and total working usage can easily top 5 GB with not much else running in the background. Again, just trying to give some background, this is definitely causing issues, but may or may not be the precise cause of this issue.

This is a deal breaker to me. I travel a lot, and as such, a second monitor is neigh unfeasible to have all of the time. Export of displays would be a MUCH better route to go. Plus the second monitor poses a performance impact that to some would be unacceptable.

I do not have this issue. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but it is clearly not a global problem.

B, cast resin. Maybe a good idea to make a poll, to see who is in the potential market for what? Though it probably wouldn't be representative of any population without some advertising to the general masses.

I agree, plus, those who still feel the need to look at and use their keyboard for everything still have the option to not use the rift. It should only be an option for those who have purchased it, it's not like anyone is forcing you to use a rift.

Israel, hands down. Not just because of their F-15's either. The Israeli Air Force is extremely well trained, equipped, and maintained. None of which the Iranians can boast. Additionally, the equipment on Iranian jets cannot hope to match that of the Israeli ones. Even if the F-15I wasn't already ages ahead of the F-14A, Israel has Elbit to thank for some serious advantages in military electronics. Iran has what again? But lets assume that somehow, Iranian pilots become competent enough to enter BFM with the Israelis. In this case, it's not like the F-15I is any pushover. Both aircraft share many of the same advantages, and although technically, the cat would have a better turn radius, the 15 could outpower it by energy. The higher skill of the Israeli pilots basically ensures this. Forget about any BVR engagement. The Iranians would lose before they knew what hit them. The F-15I is probably the next best thing to the F-22A (more likely the F-15J though) when it comes to considering BVR capabilities of modern fighters. The American F-15E's would probably actually be better at it, electronics wise, because of the new -82 RADAR, but this comparison is mute because no F-15E would knowingly go into an air to air engagement if there were any other specialized fighters around (F-16C, F-15C, F-22A, etc.).

Or even anything about what was actually signed into the contract. For all we know, 3rd party developers could have complete and total freedom to do whatever as long as they stay within certain guidelines. We wouldn't even know what those guidelines are, if they even exist.

"Hey, the devs haven't posted anything in eight months! IT MUST BE DEAD!" More likely, they have their hands tied, so progress on this aircraft has probably come to a crawl. I don't think that it has stopped though, and more than likely, development on projects like the T-6-IIB, T-2, and M2000C will greatly benefit the F-15E.

The two aircraft are more different than a lot of people think. Without the CFT's, they would be similar, but not the SAME. I don't think that the work done on one would greatly benefit the other. Maybe some of the systems work on the hydraulics, fuel, and electrical systems could be carried over, but a lot would still have to be changed. Maybe all of it considering that ED and RAZ might have extremely different coding styles.

Mode-S transponders will never be required equipment. Instead, the ADS-B system will make use of both 1090ES (required for aircraft above 17,999'), and UAT systems which will be required equipment in 2020. For airliners, this requirement gets pulled to 2017 for all aircraft. For now though, pretty much the only transponder requirement for operations in certain airspace is a MODE-C transponder with altitude reporting capability enabled. Also, FYI, controlled airspace is defined as being "Anything other than class G airspace". Just because you aren't required to be talking to someone doesn't mean that you aren't flying in an controlled airspace of some sort.

Another great thing to probably implement down the line would be something like the set that LeAVu2 had (search by user "Yoda"). It had great extended MFD functionality for some of the FC3 aircraft (F-15C in specific).

I'm not going to laugh at ToH. Its flight dynamics are still miles ahead of ArmA's. Though there really is something to be said about DCS aircraft that puts them on a whole other level.

The A-10's around here fly pretty low when they come into the MOA. I run outside like a small child whenever I hear them fly over. Sadly, I think that the sequester has removed a lot of their flying hours as they don't come around that often any more. Still get quite the few UH-60's and CH-47's every now and again though.

Also, any chance of being able to export other displays, say the RADAR display in the Eagle?

Any noticeable latency? I know a lot of the screen to Android services that I have used for this suffer unbearable lag of up to, and sometimes exceeding, .5 seconds. Also, will it properly display any mfcd at any resolution? It would also be nice to be able to choose which MFCD to copy.

What some people don't seem to understand is that a LOT of military logistics is actually contracted out to civilian aircraft operators. 747's and the like make regular runs out to Kandahar and Bagram. Even if that weren't the case, do you really think that civilian air traffic would just halt because of a minor conflict? Not likely. People still need to get in and out of country, supplies still need to be trucked in so that people don't starve and can have nice things.

Or it could be the AN/APG-63. Doesn't necessarily have to be the (V)1. Point is, the RADAR doesn't behave like it should, and we end up with a made up RADAR which is neither the AN/APG-63 or the (V)1. It would be more accurate to call it "FC3 F-15C RADAR imitator".

Because it is a necessity? Just because you can't see the plane on RADAR, that doesn't mean the pilot should be invisible.