VinFlyer 8 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 :? what's that for an answer? Last I heard was that first the A10 will be completed and after that work on the f-16 will resume. The A-10 will be the first... FS16 after that So status on f-16 at this point nothing more than what has already been said and showed here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nater 0 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Any possibiltiy on some progress screenshots ? I would love to see the panel .....so far its looking very promissing. Will you add a mission with release like you have with the beaverX. By the way while im here , that beaver is b-a-utiful ..i love it and its worth every penny. Ill make a vid sometime andf post it. Well off track here. I would like to see a mission come w/ it , would be neat to do the walk to aircraft again...only faster this time LOL. do a scramble and take off . Lastly, would you be able to provide a sound sample , im very curious to how realistic it sounds. Anyways, thanks again nater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Fastmover 0 Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Will this model contain INS or the Garmin GPS used in FSX? Will it be fully functional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverickNL 0 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 I was wondering since you are also bringing out he A-10 wil the F-16 and the A-10 be compateble in the dogfight modes? ( if you can dogfight with a A10 of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick C 110 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 A-10's were primarily built for ground attack, hence why the pilot sits in a titanium bath and the engines are protected to some degree by the wings against ground attack (never quite understood that myself). As a young teenager I used to watch the A-10's over here in the UK come in from the sea for mock attacks on a viaduct which bridged a local estuary, fascinating but lacking the sound of that gun :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 If a jet is moving quickly, as they tend to do (even an A-10! ), then consider the trajectory of the incoming object, Nick - the incoming doesn't actually hit the jet, the jet and whatever is incoming have to intersect at a point in space. In order to get up to the engines, the incoming object has to pass through a lower, more forward bit of space to get there - which, strangely, is where the wings are! An A-10 versus an F-16 would be one to watch, actually. The T'bolt could outmaneouvre the Falcon easily, but the Falcon could just as easily blast out of range on reheat, pull some crazy reverse and come back in spamming AMRAAMs and late-model Sidewinders at the Thunderbolt. Who'd win? I suspect the Thunderbolt, because the F-16 ran out of fuel first! Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick C 110 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 I understand the principle of using the wings to limit damage to the engines, but my point is, why would you need two engines if you only have one wing? I'd rather have one engine and two wings! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Well the common urban legend is of an F-15 and an A-10 that collided over the Nellis ranges... The F-15 recovered safely minus a wing (the body itself generates lift, so this is actually possible) and the A-10 recovered with one and a half wings, one empennage and one engine. Does that answer your question? Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick C 110 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 No, it's an "urban legend" 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Fine. The fact is that the A-10 is designed to be very survivable. Losing half a wing would just make the pilot swear a lot. And that's enough posting board ping-pong from me, so the thread is yours! Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick C 110 Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 I'm starting to understand why he has a bath underneath him, still flying with one wing missing one would require some sort of vestibule to catch your misgivings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon 2 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Hi, Nick - Couldn't help but laugh my arse off reading your comment. Cheers and ttfn.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick C 110 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Glad to be of service, I often wonder if anybody understands my dry British humour :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Glad to be of service, I often wonder if anybody understands my dry British humour :wink: I'm just evil and enjoy arguing... Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dag Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hi, Nick - Couldn't help but laugh my arse off reading your comment. Cheers and ttfn.... Oh my, Deacon has landed Welcome Sir 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon 2 Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hey, Dag. It's good to have landed! I know I'm in good company here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaders 97 Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hi Gents, I think we all agree FSX is in need of some fast jet treatment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon 2 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 That's a roger. There are a few that work pretty well, but nothing like the Falcon's gonna be. How're you doin' Chaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaders 97 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 How're you doin' Chaders? I'm good thanks. Yourself?? How you managing with FSX?? I'm missing a couple of favorites but they're the only reason I fire up FS9 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon 2 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Just downloaded and installed SP-1. Frame rates a little better, though my machine isn't as good as the one that just crashed! I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but I lost the drives and along with them (RAID0) all my existing FS9 and FSX setups. SO another couple of months of work and I'll have them back. Talked to a friend this morning who runs FSX on an Apple PowerMac (the tower) in Parallels and he says he's getting around 30 fps with high density weather in thunderstorms at 2400 feet. I think I'm going toward the Apple for my next machine! Anyway, I CAN run FSX pretty well at 16-20 fps with fairly high sliders, and I'm looking forward to the new ActiveSkyX weather to use it with, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nater 0 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I think personally the SP1 sucks. They did nothing but support dual core / Quad core "proc" It actually messed up my scenery and i have more problems than i ever had . They really should have tuned this thing down more. They can put the same amount of detail in an FS9 similar fasion such as everyother addon company out there has done for FS9 ....microsoft is after money thats all. Bastards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon 2 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Are you referring to the blurry textures that occur, say, about halfway off in the distance? My ground textures do just that and it looks awful. I get a little better FPS, but I'm not sure it's all worth it. I can't go to Vista because my business application software can't use it effectively yet, so I'm hoping that DirectX 10 will help even though I'm still using XP Pro. I've got a couple of SLI 512 cards in my laptop running a 27-inch monitor right now, and I'm told I can swap those out for DirectX 10-capable cards later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanP 0 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Well, I'm happily using a significantly improved FSX on a single core Athlon, so your questioning of ACES parentage is, quite bluntly, wrong. I also don't get blurred textures in the distance... I did until I moved the Detail radius to the highest setting though. WinXP Pro, not top of the range graphics card, not top of the range single core CPU and my frame rate at Ferihegy has trebled. Only aimed at Multicore CPUs? I think not somehow. Ian P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinFlyer 8 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Isn't this getting a little bit too much off-toppic....? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nater 0 Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Well its just this...before installing the SP1 i had a steady 20 -30 fps . I can live with that as i am a Fireman not a gamer anyways and i am not looking for the 40 -60 range . My scenery wasnt blurry at distances and i had it to high. Now with Sp1 my fps is at 20-25 and airports tarmack etc...is a bluish color and textures are blurry . So i would say that ....the SP1 does still suck thats me though.......(((( microdofft can keep there products pshhhh, im done with them ))))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts