streakeagle

My son and all his friends can sing this song (which is also an Android game):

Is it USB 3.0 compliant?

Why is it nothing is ever easy? From a long term perspective: just a bump in the road!

MiG-17F Freco C data is in the Have Drill performance evaluation by the USAF. You can do a flash version of this report here: http://area51specialprojects.com/video/havedrill_tactical.swf

<S> I sincerely believe they truly were the greatest generation.

While I still believe this will be released, it's all talk until I get a download link. Still more unexpected delays. Even without the internal mix-up, I don't see how they would have made the announced March 31 release, especially since they said the internal struggle didn't really impact progress, yet delayed the release anyway. How can you be so certain that the release is imminent to call out a "no later than" date just 2 months away, and then still have no news about when it is really going to be released as you are over a week into March? I would be surprised if I get this before Christmas. If it isn't released by Christmas, I will put it in the "Fighter Ops" category of wishful thinking. It looks like it would really be cool to fly, though. So, while I expect the worst, I am hoping for a release as soon as possible... April? May? June? Combined with the AFM for the F-15C, this could make for some awesome close in dogfights both offline and in multiplayer.

Keep on truckin' ! 1/48 is really good for me: Almost as popular as 1/72 (you can get almost any aircraft you can think of in 1/48). Large enough to see good detail. Small/cheap enough to have lots of them. Of course, some 1/48 models end up being large: I have an SR-71, B-17G, and PBY hanging up and a half-finished B-1B that dwarfs all of them (with functioning swing wing). My son just blew all of his saved up money buying this and having me build it for him: http://www.amazon.com/Bandai-MS-06F-Zaku-Real-Grade/dp/B004XQNEXM/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_d_1 It is small, but had countless small parts, lots of jointed/hinged parts, and the eye is geared to move with the head. Most amazing model I have ever seen and it fits in the palm of my hand. Molded in colors, no glue or paint needed, just press fit and vinyl(?) stickers.

What was offensive or inaccurate in my original answer that merited a response like "sorry I asked" ? Is it odd for someone who has been flying a sim since its original release and privately beta tested it for the developer for years to provide answers about that sim? I have answered and will continue to answer questions about any sim I have sufficient knowledge to provide an accurate answer. Just check my posts. I can and have told how to get Jane's Fighters Anthology running on Windows 7 64-bit even though I stopped flying it with any regularity once I had Jane's USAF. I can do the same for Jane's USAF if someone ever asks. Because: 1) I still have these sims installed and running on my latest PC. 2) I have no problem sharing knowledge to help others getting them to run. 3) As far as I know there are no forum police preventing me from doing so just because I have moved on to another sim.

While I down own it and haven't flown it, I understand the VRS Superbug with TACPACK is a very good way to go. I have never been vert interested in the Super Hornet and as such never flew Jane's F/A-18 very much. I would like to fly the original F/A-18A and as such can't wait for DCS F/A-18C, which is close enough for my purposes.

SF game engine is not being updated anymore. If you don't like the way it works now, you are never going to like it. If IL-2 makes you happier, don't waste your time on SF.

Bought it quite some time ago. Didn't care for flying fictional helicopters. I know someone did a ton of work trying to tune the flight models to be much more accurate compared to the real helos the fictional ones are modeled after... But it never really felt any different or better than ArmA2, which gave me more fun with its UH-1 and AH-1 options. You can't beat OFP/ArmA helo missions for immersion. So much more to helo ops than a detailed/accurate flight model. Since the UH-1/AH-1 helos I want to fly the most aren't even modeled in Take On Helicopters more detailed flight model, I never play it even though it integrated ArmA2 into it. But, I primarily want to feel like I am flying a real helicopter, and right or wrong, DCS UH-1H and Mi-8 are fulfilling that role for me better than any helo sim I have ever tried before. If I could just fly the DCS UH-1H in the ArmA game engine without any compromises, I don't think helo flight sims could ever improve much. While I would never recommend Take On Helicopters over other helo flight sim options, at $3 who wouldn't buy it just to see if maybe it somehow is good for you?

Not a dumbass, just an unexpected change from one software version to the next. I encountered the problem myself some time ago and as stubborn as I am, I bang my head against a wall quite some time before I go searching for help. I just happened to stumble onto the solution and vaguely remembered it well enough to convey my lesson to you. Glad I could help.

I don't know a thing about creating LODs, but assuming you have created one correctly, then the most likely cause for missing components is either: 1) Incorrect file path (i.e. the LOD is not in the directory that is being searched by the game) 2) Incorrect file name Of course some programming geeks might consider that the file name is really part of the complete file path, in which case there is only one cause of this problem.

Since some game developers did not provide the option in their game settings for TrackIR, I think the later software includes a checkbox that determines the behavior. Maybe try the "Trueview" checkbox on the profile you are using for a given game?

Originally, the game didn't even have the ability to stop the engine or turn off the radar. Be happy with what you have.

Those helmets look too bulky/heavy. Fighter pilots always needed strong neck muscles, looks like they are going to be even stronger.

Outstanding landing. The award was nice, but I bet the aircrew and their families could care less about that. I am curious how bad the flexing was. If the longerons on the nose didn't fracture, I could see the airframe being made flyable again. At the very least, the aircrew not only saved their own lives, but kept quite a bit of the B-1 intact as spares for other B-1s if it wasn't repairable. I hope they were able to identify the cause of the failure and take some action to keep it from happening to someone else who might not be so lucky to put her down so well.

Getting a bigger monitor won't help out any unless it has a significantly higher resolution than the monitor you are complaining about. Otherwise, the pixels will just look bigger and uglier. I can say that sitting about 2 or 3 feet from a 46" 1080p LCD TV generally leaves my gauges looking full size and good resolution... very readable. Unless, I open my field of view out to something like 90 degrees. Typical 60-80 degree fields of view are quite readable if not perfect. Most of my problems stem from the lack of color range on LCD TVs compared to dedicated PC monitors (CRTs really excelled in this area). At the 46 inch scale with limited color range (typically 70% of the NTSC standard) antialiasing doesn't look as good no matter what multiplier you use from x4 to x16. A blue sky with a wide range of blue hues (almost every decent sim I know of) looks more like 16-bit color with its banding. I recently forced my DVI output to my LCD TV to use Adobe color scales (closer to 90% range of NTSC) since my specific model of Mitsubishi TV was famously known for having a much wider percentage of NTSC standard colore mapping. It may be a placebo effect, but the blue banding of the sky seems less obvious after having done so. What I want is a quad HD PC monitor in the 46" to 60" range with a full color spectrum usuable by the HDMI input of the TV and output of my card. In the interim, given the limitations of current gpus and HDMI ports, I might settle for a 2560x1600 30" monitor... The resolution increase sounds awesome, but having enjoyed the large field of view provided by a 46" monitor, I don't think I will downgrade my monitor size just to get slightly smoother gages and possibly better color shades. I have been running 1600x1200 since SFP1 was released on an old Radeon 8500 128MB. It is about time the market provide me with a decent resolution increase at an affordable price and fully usable by the PC hardware at decent quality settings.

Progress... yet delayed again. I wish they wouldn't even bother to post release dates until it is truly firm and won't change for any reason short of the internet going down or the end of the world. I kind of liked TK/Third Wire's way of doing things in the beginning: He stated long term goals in general terms and backed them with patches/service packs, then would surprise everyone with a new release like Wings Over Vietnam. The only time he overcommitted what he was going to do in those early Walmart fiasco days was stating there would be a free F-104C addon after the very popular free F-4J and A-4F addons. The loss of the F-104C was excusable, though, as the C-130A and F-104G were both removed from later SFP1 releases due to ongoing legal issues with Lockheed and its quest to license every one of its planes in the flight sim universe. Ultimately, so many years later, he made good with SF2 and DLC, even if he had lost the capital to make the F-104 a flyable aircraft and had to charge again for what was originally promised for free. I can't recall him ever promising anything that specific again until unveiling the SF2 North Atlantic game long before release, and even then he was careful to say as little as possible about what F-14 and ship functionality would be modeled. I do feel like the new terrain engine was somewhat overhyped, but not by TK. He said the extra detail people were screaming for was going to cost size and performance, and that was no lie. But everyone expected that TK would make creating and adding terrain as "easy" as the original terrain. Of course, TKs repsonse was a little cryptic and mostly useless: even without his support, everything you need to make new terrains is there, you just have to figure it out on your own since many of the key files in the new stock terrain were locked down. I can't way to see how the DCS : MiG-21bis turns out. I hope it meets or beats all the other extremely accurate DCS modules. I hope someone else follows it up with my favorite: the F-4 Phantom.

This problem can be solved: combine monitors to get the same pixel density around the instruments at wide angle that you have when you are zoomed in. Of course, you will need to run high end gpu's in SLI to even come close and have a reasonable frame rate. Going from a 1080p monitor to an ultra HD (quad HD) monitor is the same as using four 1080p monitors. That would double your resolution and make a noticeable improvement, but still wouldn't look as good as your zoomed in pic, would presently limit you to 30 fps due to the current HDMI connection available with first gen UHD TVs, and you would struggle to hit those 30 fps with 1 gpu. When the UHD monitors become available that have either display port or a higher spec HDMI capable of at least 60 fps and a single gpu can easily handle that many pixels with vsync enabled, that is the direction I am going. In the mean time, I have the zoom control mapped to an axis on my throttle if it isn't mapped to my Track IR so that I can easily trade between field of view and detail. P.S. A good 1920x1200 monitor is a good way to go unless you can afford a 2560x1600 monitor and some gpu power to drive it.

Legendary pilot, but nobody is perfect: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/top-gun-pilot-forgot-landing-gear/article_0e5210b2-8814-50fa-b8ba-03beaa5ab3ba.html A former Navy Top Gun with decades of flying experience forgot to put his plane's landing gear down during an air show practice run in Tucson in March, the Federal Aviation Administration found. Retired Capt. Dale "Snort" Snodgrass, a seasoned pro on the military air-show circuit, was piloting a Korean War-era F-86 Sabre that scraped to a stop and caught fire in the March 4 mishap at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Snodgrass, 57, was given counseling as "corrective action," according to the FAA report, obtained by the Arizona Daily Star under the Freedom of Information Act. The pilot was unhurt in the incident, which shut down air-show practice at D-M that day. The vintage warplane he was flying, owned by a California air museum, sustained minor damage when one of its wing fuel tanks ignited. The F-86 was one of dozens of warplanes in Tucson to practice formation flying for the 2006 air-show season. The event was not open to the general public. Snodgrass remains on the Air Force schedule this season. The service still has "total confidence in his abilities," according to a statement from the Air Combat Command. Snodgrass, a Florida resident, declined to comment on the FAA finding. Mike Abraham, a spokesman for CASE, LLC, the Virginia-based defense contractor that hired Snodgrass for the March 4 flight, said the pilot did not want to be interviewed. It is rare, but not unheard of, for pilots to land without putting their landing gear down, said Arvin Schultz, president of the Phoenix-based Arizona Pilots Association. "It's something that shouldn't happen, but when it does, the course of action the FAA takes is pretty standard," he said. If damage is minor and the incident is a simple oversight, discipline usually consists of giving the pilot a talking-to, Schultz said. The lecture would be "kind of demeaning" for a highly accomplished aviator, he said. Snodgrass, who retired from a 26-year Navy career in 1999, is renowned in the air-show world. He has 10,000 hours of flight time under his belt, half of them in the F-14 Tomcat, a Navy record for the jet. In 1985, Snodgrass was a Top Gun graduate and the Navy's Fighter Pilot of the Year. From 1994 to 1997, he was commander of all the Navy's F-14s. He flew the Tomcat in air shows for more than a decade, and is qualified on at least six other aircraft, including several vintage warplanes. Retired Air Force Maj. Jack Boileau of Tucson, a former F-86 pilot, said he can't fathom how someone with those credentials could forget such a basic rule of aviation. "It's hard to believe that a guy with all that experience would not put down his landing gear," said Boileau, adding that the F-86 has warning lights and a cockpit alarm to prevent such a mistake. The FAA report made no mention of the warning systems. It said the landing problem was "pilot induced." Because a fire resulted, the D-M mishap "could have been serious," Boileau said. "It's lucky that things ended as well as they did."

FA runs just fine on my Win7 64 PC. If the game runs at different speeds, you probably don't have the final patch applied. The color will be screwed up unless you run a special batch file to automatically toggle between normal WIn 7 and the state you need to play FA. FA was much more like a true ACM sim with the 714 libs. No aircraft turning like UFOs (apparently the default F-16 was a bit overmodeled).

http://www.fighterops.com/forum/showthread.php?13-new-home&p=4076#post4076 Shouldn't that read, "...we stopped working years ago, we will never have anything to report, but please keep renewing your Area51 subscriptions to keep this web page online for another 10 years."

A2A simulations has greatly disappointed me as well. I haven't bought any of their products despite being tempted many times. I just don't get as much fun tooling around in FSX as I do in air combat sims. Between Strike Fighters 2 and DCS, I almost never play FSX. But, years ago they announced plans to do an AccuSim F-4 Phantom. A well done F-4 Phantom would get my attention even without the combat capability. Of course the possibility of using TacPack to add on combat capability could really get the job done. A thread about the F-4 showing progress photos used to be stickied in their forums. Almost immediately, A2A decided they needed to do something simpler to ease their way into supersonic jets. They announced that the F-104 Starfighter would be done first. The F-104 would conveniently share engines with the F-4 the same way the Spitfire and Mustang did in their previous AccuSim releases. But recently, A2A admitted on the forums that even the F-104 was beyond their present capability. So, they are going to start with a T-33 to get a very basic jet fighter under their belt before even thinking about high performance supersonic jets. Of course, they are so busy working on their current "bread and butter" light planes, Cessnas and Pipers, I doubt the T-33 would ever be done any time soon... This decade? If the best of the FSX third party payware modders can't make a "DCS" level jet in any reasonable time, this does not bode well for most of the other ones who are trying to release DCS addons. Even Eagle Dynamics has yet to release a fully DCS level supersonic fighter jet. The F/A-18C should be their first, whenever it finally gets released. If and when the F-15C AFM for FC3 is released, it will represent a big hurdle having been overcome if it has been done correctly. But the star for me was going to be the MiG-21bis. Still no real news other than wait for the "big announcement".

Hi-res template was delivered by Sundowner. Go to town with the "Thud"