Agiel7

Last hope of fixing it is going to a respectable RC Hobby Services shop and seeing if they can get a hold of obscure springs. If not, I'm wondering if the damper from the extensions kit for the Orion 2 is compatible with the Orion 1 base so I can at least turn it into my dedicated rotary-wing base. From the installation manuals the relevant parts look similar, but it might be a matter of getting the right dimensions down to get it to work.

One of the springs for my Orion 1 base snapped while in use and while I can disassemble it to replace it I'm having a hard time finding a replacement. I've contacted Winwing customer support and they told me that because the Orion 1 base was EOL they won't be sending me spare springs. Annoyingly when they made this base they opted to use some exotic spring with end loops that go at right angles, with one end that's rectangular and essentially keyed to the cam, so I'm out of luck using even Winwing's spare springs for the Orion 2. Anyone have an idea where I can get a hold of spare springs?

Great mission. Just one observation. I know the official ED grading isn't necessarily accurate when flying the F-14, but when using down DLC at the last moment to catch the 3-wire the mission grading gives me a -10 "Settled" penalty, even though I go to full-mil at about touchdown and the ED grading doesn't give me an EGTL or EGIW knock. Is this intended behaviour?

I think it might have been as MustangSally said and double-checking the connection of the stick to the base cable and doing a better job of tightening the knurled nut. Haven't experienced any disconnects since then.

Update: Have a screen of this happening if it helps: null

I've been trying to practice Case I traps and occasionally I've been experiencing temporary disconnects of the Orion stick. This seems to occur mostly on the final turn into the groove (trying to hold a constant ~25-30 degree left bank). The disconnect tends to be for about 1-2 seconds, but this time it happened for long enough for me to take a screen of the inputs in the WinApp and this shows up: null Additionally once this occurs and I go into WinApp I get a pop-up saying that there's an available firmware update. However re-connecting the stick I get this screen on the update screen: null

What about the AARGM or the AIM-120D? With the latter ain't nothing else in the skies will be able to challenge the Hornet till the F-14 rolls around with the AIM-54.

It occurs to me that for the first few weeks we may not see that many Hornets airborne on servers, even though plenty of people bought the module. Why? Because the flight deck of the carrier will be foul due to all the people who crashed trying to trap when they got the wave off from the LSO :D

It's said that an unguided bomb a la the Mk. 82 landing anywhere more than 15 feet away from a T-62 like target would cause a pretty major case of tinnitus for the crew, but otherwise leave the tank in a pretty much useable state.

Aircraft historically haven't done terribly well against main battle tanks or their analogues in WWII until the development of cluster munitions, air-launched anti-tank guided missiles, and the laser-guided bomb. For instance, dropping a ~500lbs Mk. 82 anything more than 15ft away from a T-72 would give the crew a major case of tinnitus but would otherwise leave the tank still usable. http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/

I'd add that Patriot wasn't as much of a lemon for anti-TBM over Israel as some claim it to be. The anti-TBM capability was added to defend against TBM attacks on high value targets like airfields, C2, logistic centers, and so forth in the Central Front in Germany. So, the proximity-fuzed blast frag warhead sufficed for bumping the missile off-course from its intended target. The problem with that approach over Israel: Israel is one of the world's most densely populated countries, so some debris falling on someplace populated even if the intercept was successful was inevitable.

That is to ignore the fact that the Soviet Union lagged significantly against the west in the fields of C3I, materials science, opti-electronics, and so forth towards the end of the Cold War, and that the arms industries of the successor state stagnated for the better part of a decade. For instance, Russian thermal imagers are license built copies of last generation suites developed by Thales. And the 2008 war showed that their precision strike capability was close to non-existent. On the issue of money: With 1% of the American economy, close to 1,200 F-22 Raptors can be built (if going by fly-away cost). With 1% of the Russian economy, little more than 300 of the much cheaper T-50 can be built (if the target fly-away cost actually holds true).

One of several reasons why the Pugachev's Cobra isn't a viable maneuver is amply demonstrated in Flaming Cliffs itself: Though the unfortunate thing here is that some kids whose only exposure to BFM is Top Gun and that one mission from Battlefield 3 have the nerve to claim that they know better. I've also heard anecdotally that there are AOA limiters installed on most Flankers, in case there's a pilot who is dumb enough to think it's a good idea.

I believe a while ago the Swiss held one of their largest military exercises. The only remotely plausible enemy they could think of for that scenario was a bankrupt French breakaway state that is trying to invade Switzerland because "the Swiss stole all our monies!"

I think I know what video you are talking about, I should point out that you should pay attention to the user name of the person posting that video, which should clue you in to the bias. Otherwise, everything in there is outright fabrications (and blatantly misinformed ones at that i.e. "results of Pacific Vision") and putting words into other people's mouths, and every single point made in that video has been viciously shot down by people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

With the Malaysian airlines tragedy and the difficulty of searching that much ocean for any sign of the crash, I wondered how useful something like JSTARS would be for locating the crash. I suppose some debris might be too difficult to pick out amongst the waves on the open sea which is why it hasn't been tried as a silver bullet for this kind of situation.

My bet is that its going towards a UI re-design of the command map system of Combined Arms and some cosmetic changes to the tank gunnery so that it *somewhat* resembles the real thing as well as some implementation of some actual thermal imaging.

ED would have to update the terrain map of the Georgia map in order to make it a good representation of the kind of environments most tanks will traverse. As was said before, DCS was designed as an air combat simulation, not a ground simulator. As such, given the sheer scale of the area ED had to model there wasn't much room in polygon budgets and such to include terrain with the kind of granularity you might expect from the likes of ArmA or Steel Beasts (just as they cannot render a map large enough to encompass air combat relevant to the battles they model). Maybe Eagle Dynamics could pull some strings to get an E-8 JSTARS to do a flyover of Georgia to help them to get a good picture of the terrain.

It does seem a tad wasteful to invest in putting a very sophisticated piece of technology into something that, if deployed as intended, you're likely not going to be able to use again.

Some people bemoan the lack of dynamic campaigns for DCS in its current form, and while I am not averse to the prospect (far from it, in spite of some bittersweet memories of Falcon 4.0's valiant shake at the concept) I don't think dynamic campaigns can offer intense experiences like this mission. The one I speak of is the OCA raid wherein you fly terrain masking through the South Ossetian river valleys and the Caucasus Mountains to sneak up on the Russian AWACS. My hand had a deathgrip on my poor little Logitech flightstick :joystick: and throttle and more than once I had to pause the mission because my hand was cramping up, not to mention a few close calls with stalling due to a few high-G turns (partially due to me making one or two wrong turns through the valleys). Then there was the payoff of going the fighter equivalent of "rock and roll" on the A-50 (ripple firing all of my Slammers in pairs at various intervals), turning it into a fireball right from under the noses of the Russian SA-10s and SA-11s, dropping my tanks, and leaving an Eagle-shaped puff of smoke over the confused and flabbergasted Russians as I afterburned out of there. By the time I thought I was safely out of reach I thought that my fuel situation was so dire that I considered it a success if I managed to get my F-15 running on fumes over friendly lines and ejecting, but alas I made it back to Vazaini. The mission reminded me of some of the missions in Jane's F/A-18 where you and your flight and a skeleton ground crew covertly land at an abandoned Finnish airstrip in order to launch a strike flying barely 300 feet above the deck against the Red Russian nuke storage bunkers. These types of missions make you think in your head: "If only James H. Doolittle can see me now..." Great mission design Wags. Hope to see more missions and campaigns from you eventually when you find the time. Something tells me when you and the rest of the ED guys are finally finished with the F-15's AFM that mission will get a *whole* lot more interesting.

Apparently, the B-2 is actually supposed to have a fraction of the F-117s RCS despite being three times as large due to advances in aircraft design technology and materials science. Also, the designer of Sim Simulator has gone on record saying that the cited values for the F-117 are actually quite optimistic... ...according to Serbian war-time experience. Their SAM operators reported the RCS was at least an order of magnitude smaller than that.

Also, a user name like: "PowerRossiya"? Sounds like someone who frequents those Slavic Supremacist websites (or whatever the Russian equivalent of "Stormfront" is) who likes to think somehow the USAF lost B-2s and F-117s by the droves in Allied Force.

Kamikaze drones? I thought we already had a name for those: Missiles :megalol:

Why, oh why must the night fighters be so out of reach? :( I really wanted to experience shooting down Lancasters and Wimpys with the Schrage Musik in a Ju-88.

The two-seater F Superhornet is generally better suited for A/G operations due to the decreased workload on the front-seater who can concentrate on getting the aircraft into a basket to pickle the weapons while the NFO works the A/G radar and/or targeting pod. That said, single-seaters are still perfectly fine for mud-moving (as the F-16 and the A-10 can attest to) and on the flipside, having two people can also be an advantage in WVR (you have two eyes looking for bandits rather than one).