FastCargo

Isn't block size simply the number of tail numbers for that particular textureset? FC

Well, FlightGear themselves sell DVDs of the program with the world terrain. If I were going to buy from anyone, it would be them directly. FC

In a word...no. The only way to fix such an issue is to have a new pilot created in MAX and exported. FC

I'd agree with EricJ's assessment...and I built the thing! FC

The newer stock TW cockpits...probably not. The 3d models aren't backward compatible. 3rd party addons will be dependent on when they were made and which exporter was used. FC

I was chatting with Lothar (in the OFF forums) about Windows 8, and although his concerns about the Metro interface seem to be valid, Windows 8 still seems to run legacy programs just fine in the desktop like you see in Windows 7, XP, etc. So that begs the question...what's to prevent anyone from writing programs that just work in the desktop, and avoid the whole Metro interface? FC

Trinity fighters on patrol... FC

That's not saying much. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-26-microsoft-shuts-down-microsoft-flight-development FC

Except the CSA has not existed for just about 150 years. Pretty sure it's difficult to get that one wrong. FC

I can believe that...but the other times (like your example) is when the runways and surrounding area are similar in general size and layout. Some big 'gotcha' areas include Spokane/Fairchild AFB (like Grinch mentioned), Corpus Cristi NAS and Corpus Cristi, Biggs AAF and El Paso, Nellis AFB and Las Vegas. Or there have been cases of aircraft landing on taxiways for the same reason...Kelly AFB was notorious for that, the Continental 757 in Newark, etc. In those areas, I can see why folks can mistake one for the other. But Peter O'Knight and MacDill AFB just don't come close to matching in my opinion...there are many large enviromental cues that would let you know you're at the wrong airfield. However, I'm one of those OCD personalities that thinks it will happen to him...so I take active steps to make sure it doesn't...which is why I check the gear handle is down with 3 green at least 4 times before touchdown... FC

Heck, you should have seen the row when the USMC Honor Guard flew the Canadian flag upside down by accident during a ceremony at a particular athletic event...you'd have thought we were trying to restart the War of 1812. Touchy, touchy... FC

I'm from Tampa, and I've flown into MacDill a few times. They REALLY must not have been paying attention...MacDill's runway is MUCH longer and wider and in a significantly different location. I've seen incidents like this before, but usually the runway's (or taxiways!) were similar in size and shape. Peter O'Knight and MacDill are only similar in alignments...not much else. As far as doing a go around, it depends on when they noticed they were at the wrong place. Typically the worst thing you can do is shift modes if you are too far into the landing already. At least no one got hurt or metal bent... Friggin' boneheads. FC

Nope, but harvesting him will help others live. FC

Taxing out: The view from another angle: Laydown bomb run using the door weapons: Close up of the door weapons: Onto the next aircraft...more to come! FC

Because that picture isn't a RC-135. It's an NKC-135...an airborne test laser...NOT a recon aircraft. And it's silly at best to mistake a 747 for even a NKC-135. Especially when you fly right beside it matching airspeeds. Unless you don't know what a 747 looks like. FC

f*** that. If I have to work that hard to play one aircraft... I'd better be getting paid for it. Been there, done that... still doing that, got the t-shirt. This to me is probably why I won't be jumping into DCS:World anytime soon. Because it's about value... and I won't be getting value if I'm not using all the features I pay money for. What's the use having all those features if you use them exactly once just for the novelty. Like owning a boat that you use only half the year. Actually, more and more I realize I don't enjoy the high fidelity stuff anymore. It was fun when I wasn't doing it much in the real world or the experience was disconnected from reality due to the limitations of the hardware or software. Now that both are approaching and in some cases exceeding what's in the real world (simulators at least) they start to feel like... well.. work. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to lean toward uninstaling most of my simulations... MSFS FC2 FF5 etc. To be clear, for those who enjoy this sort of thing, good on ya! If you get value out of it, that should be what matters. But, I think it's not for me anymore. Wow, this post wasn't what I was expecting to write when I started it. FC

Also, another good reference is Valkyrie: North American's Mach 3 Superbomber...pretty much considered the definitive reference for the Valkyrie and F-108 (except for maybe the massively expensive and VERY rare VALKYRIE: THE NORTH AMERICAN XB-70: The USA's Ill-fated Supersonic Heavy Bomber). I have Julhelm's book and the first book above, an article from Airpower that a friend of mine gave me, a 1/72 scale model, and the Standard Aircraft Characteristics page ( http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm ) done by our own MKSheppard that I used as references. Plus whatever else I've found on the internet that was actually correct. FC

This is one of those things I have to ask...why? It would be different if it was an underground bunker killer...you'd want that precision, mated with such a warhead. But you'd also want a rocket engine on it to build the KE necessary to go deep enough before detonating the warhead. And a hardened penetrator nose for the same reason. A barely subsurface detonation of a nuclear weapon to me would cause far more surface damage...in which case if that's what you're looking for, being off a few hundred feet isn't going to matter... FC

Interesting paint scheme, but fairly silly changes. The forward hinged canopy is silly ... but the landing gear is worse. You wouldn't see gear like that on a nearly 100,000 lb class fighter. Anyway, the F-108 has actually been pretty far along for a while...it just got derailed by real life. http://combatace.com/topic/37246-a-tale-to-be-told/page__view__findpost__p__255543 As you can see, it is actually pretty far along...even has the proper 'clamshell' ejection seats and rotating missile bay. Was in the middle of fine tuning the FM when it was put on hold. Spinners, funny you mention the changes it went through while being developed...after it was cancelled NAA proposed yet another tweaking that gave it large LERXes, and folding ventral fins. I have the book at home...it looked significantly different from what most people think of. FC

Heh. That would actually a be a picture of my F-108A that I gave to TopGun over at the CivIII forums to use for his mods for CivIII. No one get their panties in a bunch...Ed's Rapier is significantly different from mine. Just letting folks know there are two separate F-108s in development. FC

Lothar, Thanks for the info...it seems there is more going on behind the scenes than I thought. I fully support the idea of a simpler interface for those who primarily use their computers for light applications. It makes perfect sense for a PC, tablet, and phone to have a similar interface, in that folks will want to buy into the ecosystem. That's why Apple continues to gain ground...its simple, straightforward, mostly common across its platforms and it works. However, I find it very hard to believe that MS would let the flexibility go that previous versions of Windows would give you. It may be about the money, but you would think someone would realize that if you take away that flexibility (and lack of expense to end users who use open source or other kinds of freeware apps) that there is very little difference between a MAC and PC at that point. And more people will bail to Apple...not less. I'm not fully convinced it will stay that way once Win8 is in the wild. Otherwise, why support software that wasn't written for Windows 8 at all? FC

Lothar, In fairness, I decided to explore the UI of Win8 a bit more to see if there are some concerns that people should be aware of. First, for the desktop...overall, the interface has not changed with one exception. I'll get to the exception in a minute. Icons, taskbar, notification area, right clicking, customization...as far as I can tell, none of that has changed from Windows 7. I went pretty deep into the desktop and could not find anything that prevented me from running the desktop like I do in Win7. Icons, how programs behave when starting up and shutting down, even Alt-Tab work exactly like Win7. But there is one exception. As far as I can tell, the Start Menu does not exist as you remember it...it is the Metro interface. But before anyone freaks out, let me give you a few things I was able to glean from it. One, the interface works like the Start Menu of old...in other words, if a program adds a shortcut to the old style Start Menu, it will do the same thing to the Metro menu. Also, you can Alt-Tab in the Metro menu just fine...and as soon as you select an open window with Alt-Tab, it switches right back to the desktop...no other clicking required. Also, programs that were added to the Metro menu, if you click on them, they will NOT default to full screen...File Manager and Paint.NET both defaulted to a windowed view in the desktop...yep, just like Win7. Also, if you don't like big buttons in the Metro menu, there is an option to make the buttons much smaller, almost the same size as the default Start Menu icon size. In conclusion, the biggest thing I take away from this is that the Start Menu is fullscreen (ie the Metro interface). That is it in terms of the UI. If you are a Taskbar or Desktop person who hardly uses the Start Menu, you won't notice a difference because you will never see it after the initial bootup. If you select an application that does not default to full screen in Win7, it won't default to full screen in Win8, even if you select it from the Metro interface. What this means is that it will be the developer's choice to make apps that force you to run fullscreen. MS native programs might, but even that's not completely true either. File Manager (ie Windows Explorer)didn't open full screen, and it's a MS native app. Oh, and still not liking the Metro menu? Wish you had your old style Start Menu? Yeah, there's an app for that! http://lee-soft.com/news/windows-8-start-menu/ That's just one example of several that are out there...all free. Hey, if you don't want to upgrade, that's not a problem...it's your money and time and computer. But if you're going to hate something...hate it for the right reason and hate it knowing the full story. A full screen Start Menu (that only appears when you select it and goes away as soon as you select your program) is a small price to pay for having a computer that boots and runs faster now than it did under Windows XP. FC

Or you run your applications directly from the desktop. Still not seeing what the fuss is about. You can run your apps in windows like you always could just fine. Explorer, Opera, Netflix, etc, all operate in a window...all run in window. I use Windows 8 from the desktop...I don't use the Metro interface at all except to click on the 'Desktop' button. FC

Okay, has anyone here actually USED Windows 8? I'm not seeing these 'lack of multitasking' restrictions folks keep talking about. I've got the current RC running on some extremely modest hardware and it flies. In addition, it seems to multi task just fine...zipping files while watching Netflix. Or listening to an MP3 while playing a flight sim. Yes, maybe the 'tiles' interface doesn't let you do multi tasking like a phone, but the desktop interface doesn't seem to have changed radically at all. FC

You'd be surprised...