JediMaster

I think the wing sweep mechanism is more complex. That's about it.

Well, the T-birds was a kid's film, thru and thru. You can't really compare it.

People from other countries often have trouble comprehending just how big the US is!

I remember watching a program once on the M61A1 Vulcan and it's high ROF. They mentioned the reason the US used the smaller 20mm cannon was so they could get that high ROF. The 23mm+ cannons out there (other than the Hog's GAU-8) have far lower rates of fire.

The idea is that a fighter-sized target flying at 90 degrees to your flight path would be hit by around half a dozen shells as it crossed in front of you, assuming straight and level flight for shooter and target for this argument. Against a MiG-21-sized target, that was deemed enough hits for a probable kill. Granted the target may take more to go down, but it will likely be in very bad shape as those shells have impacted along the entire length of the target, not all in one spot.

This doesn't mean the target explodes in a big fireball, but if the plane is hurt enough that the pilot must either eject or RTB, that's sufficient. In real life, of course. Sims tend not to count damaged "mission kills" as real kills.

I've been at SimHQ forever, too, but I'm also here.

It's a tool to allow easy enabling/disabling of mods for LOMAC. These go from simple skins to far more complex things.

As for where to find it, I know lockonfiles.com must have it, along with many of the mods to go with it. I've not used it myself in ages, so I'm hard pressed to say exactly.

Is that triplane actually hung in a 135 degree bank? That's not common.

Campaigns and missions, yes. Tons of them. Also the aforementioned skins.

Flyables are ONLY added via patches, as are maps. Il-2 is a "closed" sim, not "open" like CFS3, SFP1, MSFS, and some others.

LOL! I've never managed to get that close to one before. I've only heard them. Did you try ramming it??

You can have my XP when you rip it from my corpse... Vista is a perfect example of trying to do "too much with too little". The fact that MS shoved it down our throat doesn't make it any more endearing...

 

I've aways wondered why MS didn't go the other way and make a gaming OS? You know... remove everything that gets in the way of gaming... make the link between OS and hardware as pure and simple as possible... an absolute speed OS.

 

I mean looking at the amount of money a typical gamer will shell out for hardware... and the cornucopia of shareware/freeware programs promising gaming nervana... I think a dedicated gaming OS would be snatched like gold pieces!

 

(Sorry... didn't mean to hijack this thread)

They did. It's called the X360's OS.

I'd say you certainly have spent a lot of time on it!

I wouldn't want to be a Siberian Tiger right now...

I always thought it would be great to be some kind of bird, though.

A fighter on the ground is a threat to no one but ground crew.

Flying a fighter in MSFS is like flying training missions. You can't do anything different from the other planes, except for the addition of carrier ops in the latest expansion. There's no combat of any type.

There ARE missions of a sort now, but they don't involve blowing up or shooting anything.

Reminds me of the old Jane's Longbow days where it wouldn't run right on a FAT32 drive but ran fine on a FAT16 one!

The printed manual came with the original F4 releases, before it went to jewel case/pdf manual, and well before F4:AF's release. AF just has that booklet, which is more a quick ref guide.

We're testing Vista here. What a major PITA. So many programs won't work with it...I'm referring to older programs that are still in widespread use, along with websites that were designed around the lax security in XP that Vista won't allow to work.

IMHO some things were changed in Vista just for the sake of changing them and it was unnecessary. The docs/settings folder being switched to "users" for one. It does confuse some programs.

I've already decided never to dump my XP machine, and just buy a new one when I decide to go with Vista.

"Similar to, but more complex and with more payload capacity than the B-1 Lancer"

More complex? I wouldn't bet on that one. Also, NO ONE calls it the Lancer! Come on, get with the program!

I still can't believe it can have the endurance at low level a P-3 does.

Oh there's no doubt that's what's happening here. The question is has the tech evolved to the point where you can make it work better now, or is everyone wasting their time?

As I mentioned before, it's a compromise. Naturally everyone wishes they had something designed just for them.

I think in the USAF and USN and certainly the USMC's case, it's not that they want it so much as they need it because there are no alternatives other than keeping old designs in production, and in the USMC's case that's not even an option! Legacy Bugs and Harriers are out of production.

Until we can more accurately simulate the cockpit ops of these modern fighters, there's little point in releasing them. You wouldn't want to fly an F-4 with a P-51 cockpit, would you?

It will have German, Italian, and British planes certainly. So hopefully the bias will be equal.

Good comms is important. Even if something isn't working right, it's good to know they're AWARE of it.

I remember the first time I saw the trees on the islands all changed back in Dec 01. That was a surprise!