FastCargo

The first time I went through that site, people were looking at me wondering what the hell I was laughing at. That's some funny stuff right there... FC

Feasibility isn't the issue, it's cost effectiveness because you're having to design and build yet another variant. FC

Unless you know how to build a new cockpit from scratch, the answer is, you can't. Also, in real life, the reason cockpit frames do not seem as thick verses what you see in a sim is because your binocular vision 'looks behind' the frame, effectively making the frame 'thinner'. For a demostration of this effect, stand near a pole (such as a stop sign) about 4-5 feet away, and focus beyond the pole. Then close one eye, note what you see, then the other eye, note what you see, then view normally. You'll see that you can 'see' a lot more 'behind' the pole with both eyes than with one eye. You don't have that advantage in a sim, because everything is at the same focus distance. So if a cockpit is built accurately, it will appear to be 'thicker' than the real thing. You can either live with it, or artificially 'shrink' the frame, IF you have the 3ds MAX file. FC

No kidding...I was in friggin CANADA last week and I was warmer there than I am here right now...sheesh! FC

Guess the Langoliers were hungry? Sorry, couldn't resist... FC

Not like we didn't talk about it already... http://combatace.com/topic/61558-chinas-new-aircraft-and-no-one-here-talks-about-it/page__view__findpost__p__471763 FC

I really don't understand this ... it ends up driving up the costs because you're making yet ANOTHER variant. It would be different if Canada was planning on force projection, but I don't see that here. If you're talking mainly just continental defense, and you wanted to save money, Super Hornets would be cheaper and more effective overall I think because the logistics and support pipeline is already partially established. FC

uncleal, You are free to leave if you don't like our policies. We don't force folks to stay. There are certainly alternatives to where you get your daily dose of the internet. FC

From Kotaku.com The PSP2 is finally here. Sony revealed its brand new PlayStation Portable at an event in Tokyo today, our first official look at the PlayStation maker's next foray into handheld gaming, the NGP or "Next Generation Portable." First details below. The Hardware Sony confirmed many of the features of the PSP2 that we've already heard in the form of leaks, rumor and speculation. The PSP2 features a high-resolution, touch-sensitive OLED screen that's larger than the original PSP screen, tilt-sensitive SIXAXIS controls, dual analog sticks, front and back-facing cameras, and a touch sensitive back panel. Sony boasts that the new PlayStation Portable is as powerful as a PlayStation 3. The device features built-in WiFi and 3G wireless connectivity and uses an all-new form of media storage for games—no more UMD. Here's how Sony describes it: "NGP adopts a new game medium, a small flash memory based card, dedicated for NGP software titles. Taking advantage of the flash memory feature, this innovative card can store the full software titles plus add-on game content or the game save data directly on to the card. By adopting flash memory based card, SCE will be able to provide game cards with higher capacity in the future, allowing developers to store more game data to deliver rich and immersive games." For now, Sony is officially calling the new PlayStation Portable by its codename, Next Generation Portable or NGP. It will be out this holiday in Japan. The Full Specs CPU: ARM® Cortex™-A9 core (4 core) GPU: SGX543MP4+ External Dimensions: Approx. 182.0 x 18.6 x 83.5mm (width x height x depth) (tentative, excludes largest projection) Rear touch pad: Multi touch pad (capacitive type) Cameras: Front camera, Rear camera Sound: Built-in stereo speakers, Built-in microphone Sensors: Six-axis motion sensing system (three-axis gyroscope, three-axis accelerometer), Three-axis electronic compass Location: Built-in GPS, Wi-Fi location service support Keys / Switches: PS button, Power button, Directional buttons (Up/Down/Right/Left), Action buttons (Triangle, Circle, Cross, Square), Shoulder buttons (Right/Left), Right stick, Left stick, START button, SELECT button, Volume buttons Wireless communications: Mobile network connectivity (3G), IEEE 802.11b/g/n (n = 1x1)(Wi-Fi) (Infrastructure mode/Ad-hoc mode), Bluetooth® 2.1+EDR （A2DP/AVRCP/HSP） The Games Sony showcased a handful of games alongside the reveal of the new PSP, including new titles Little Deviants, Reality Fighters and Gravity Daze, plus games based on the following PlayStation franchises. Uncharted Killzone WipeOut Resistance LittleBigPlanet Hustle Kings Hot Shots Golf Sony says the new PlayStation Portable will also play PSone games supported via its PlayStation Suite platform and will be backwards compatible with downloadable PSP games. To demonstrate this, Capcom's Jun Takeuchi demoed Monster Hunter Portable 3rd for the PSP on a NGP. Third parties have shown demonstrations of Yakuza 4 and Metal Gear Solid 4 running on the system, with Activision announcing a Call of Duty for the new PSP. Here is Sony's list of third-party publishers supporting the NGP as of July 27, 2011: JAPAN ACQUIRE Corp. ALVION Inc. AQ INTERACTIVE INC. ARC SYSTEM WORKS Co.,Ltd. ARIKA CO.,LTD. ARTDINK CORPORATION ASCII MEDIA WORKS Inc. CAPCOM CO., LTD． CHUN SOFT CO., Ltd Codemasters Software Company Limited Crafts & Meister Co.,Ltd. CyberConnect2 Co.,Ltd. D3 PUBLISHER Inc. Dimps Corporation Edia Co., Ltd. ENTERBRAIN, INC. FromSoftware, Inc Gameloft K.K. Genki Co.,Ltd. Grasshopper Manufacture Inc. GungHo Online Entertainment,Inc GUST CO.,LTD. HAMSTER Corporation HUDSON SOFT CO., LTD. IDEA FACTORY CO., LTD. Index Corporation （Atlus） IREM SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INC. KADOKAWA GAMES,LTD. Kadokawa Shoten Publishing Co., Ltd. Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. LEVEL-5 Inc. Marvelous Entertainment Inc. media5 Corporation NAMCO BANDAI Games Inc. Nihon Falcom Corporation Nippon Ichi Software, Inc. NOWPRODUCTION, CO.,LTD Q Entertainment Inc. SEGA CORPORATION SNK PLAYMORE CORPORATION Spike Co.,Ltd SQUARE ENIX Co., Ltd. SystemSoft Alpha Corp. TECMO KOEI GAMES CO., LTD. TOMY Company,Ltd. TOSE CO., LTD. Ubisoft K.K. YUKE'S Co., Ltd. 48 companies in total. NORTH AMERICA Activision, Inc. Capybara Games Demiurge Studios Epic Games Inc. Far Sight Studios Frima High Voltage Software Kung Fu Factory Paramount Digital Entertainment PopCap Games Powerhead Games Trendy Entertainment Ubisoft Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment 2K Games 2K Sports 16 companies in total. EUROPE/PAL Avalanche Studios Climax Studios Ltd Codemasters Software Company Ltd Eurocom Developments Ltd Eutechnyx Ltd Exient Ltd Firemint PTY Ltd Gameloft SA Gusto Games Ltd Home Entertainment Suppliers PTY Ltd Impromptu Software Ltd Rebellion Rockstar Games Sidhe Interactive Sumo Digital Ltd Team 17 Software Ltd Ubisoft Entertainment SA Zen Studios Ltd 18 companies in total by Michael McWhertor, at Kotaku.com

Why does everyone assume that? Folks, as anyone in the aircraft industry can tell you, regenerating a brand new aircraft, even if based on and old design, is EXPENSIVE. Ask the Russians about restarting the An-124 production line..estimated to cost 50 billion dollars. And that's for an aircraft with commercial applications, making several dozens of them, and still having the plans, production jigs and available facilities. FC

Well, it really isn't 'made up' per se...it is an actual proposal for a VTOL fighter by Convair in the early 70s: http://combatace.com/topic/28855-convair-200a-vstol/ There isn't much on the internet about it, you can Google "Convair 200A sea control" to get some textual descriptions of its purpose and ultimate outcome. The better references are in books such as "American Secret Projects". The answer is...probably. Would it have flown to specifications? Difficult to say. If you look closely, it resembles the Viggen in general layout, and would have been of the same to slightly later vintage. Now, it is a VTOL aircraft, so that would have added to the complexity, but considering VTOLs (including those with lift fan engines) already existed by this point, the technology curve would not have been insurmountable. The actual effectiveness would have been a different story, and since I don't think it ever got to mockup stage, it is hard to say what would have been like in service. FC

Well, remember there are several parameters you need to adjust. First, remember that the [FlightControl] section is mainly for the AI to fly the aircraft in parameters. It does a secondary job of keeping the aircraft within limits through a crude decreasing thrust curve (or pitch down moment for altitude limits) that overrides the charts. I find this can be problematic for aircraft that have limits that are dictated by other than thrust or drag (thermal or other considerations). I tend to raise the limits in the AI section and manipulate the FM tables to get the performance I want (ie I should be able to exceed Mach 1 in dry thrust in a shallow dive, even though I don't in level flight for a particular aircraft). Anyway, speed limits (discounting the [FlightControl] section) are determined by the following: Base coefficients: CD0 - Zero-lift drag coefficient CDL - Drag coefficient due to lift (induced drag effect) SLThrustDry - Non-AB Thrust at Sea Level SLThrustWet - AB Thrust at Sea Level Chart coefficients (used as multipliers): CD0MachTable - Zero-lift drag coefficient multiplier (of CD0) vs Mach number CDLAlphaTable - Total drag coefficient multiplier vs AOA AltitudeTableData - Thrust data multiplier for altitude DryMachTableData - Thrust data multiplier for Mach (Non-AB) WetMachTableData - Thrust data multiplier for Mach (AB) So, several things we can take away from this: One, speed calculations can get VERY complex, dependent on Mach, altitude and AOA. Two, and I see this mistake made a lot, reducing CD0 to almost nothing means that even with massive CD0MachTable chart manipulation, your actual drag values simply won't change that much. Three, AOA can make a big difference, which can be directly manipulated in level flight by weight. An aircraft that can't supercruise at full internal fuel weight may be able to with 25% internal fuel weight, because you need less AOA, because your total lift requirement has decreased. Four, the resolution of the charts a lot of times isn't good enough. I've been using a standard of 0.1 Mach resolution for the Mach tables, and 1000 meters for the altitude tables...using LOTS of interpolation. Five, a final recommendation for 'at the limit' evaluation is to jack up the values in the [FlightControl] section real high, so you can get a better idea of how the numbers are really working without any artificial limits interfering...sometimes guys forget and wonder why their manipulations aren't changing anything... For the Lightning, I was playing with it just a little and I think the 2.095 Mach limit is kicking the thrust reduction in a little soon...I've been hovering right at 1.99 Mach at 45k feet. I'd say try jacking the Mach Limit up to 2.2 in the [FlightControl] section to see if that helps. FC

It's a solid rocket fuel based on black powder. Here's a primer on rocket engines: http://www.hobbylinc.com/rockets/info/rockets_enginefacts.htm Basically, the engines are completely self contained and pre-packaged. You don't do anything except put them in the rocket and use them, then dispose of them...no hazardous mixing of chemicals or complicated ignition procedures. Estes rockets were the rocket company for small rockets back in the day... Unfortunately, model rocketry is kind of a dying hobby like a lot of hobbies that require time, patience and skill. It simply takes too long and too much effort to build nice models. The only advantage is that rocketry is still very cheap. Once your skills have progressed sufficiently, pretty much the only specialized products you need are the nose cones, body tubes, and engines (and if have experience with lathing...you can even make your own nose cones). Everything else can be built or constructed from cheap hardware store materials...even launch systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket FC

Well...yea we told you that! :) FC

There is no working HUD gun counter. FC

Or, download the Northrop 2 seaters, find the F-5F, compare cockpit folders, copy the files you need. FC

I can see this thread deteriorating pretty quickly. It'll be moved into the Arena if it gets ugly. FC

JM, We found out the exact same way, I still remember the look of shock on our English teacher's face at the moment of the announcement. FC

The thing is, the T-38 isn't a perfectly good airplane...not anymore. We are starting to get a lot of single point failures that were simply not anticipated by Northrop (imagine telling the original designer his aircraft would still be getting used at the same flight rate 50 years later). It's getting more and more expensive to continue to keep the aircraft flying, especially since the aircraft and parts production lines were shut down long ago. There are other aircraft that can do the job better (the USAF started evaluations a long time ago) and that already are in production, the problem is the high initial cost doesn't yet offset the savings generated by lower MTBF rates. FC

The way the sim handles skids is problematic I've noticed when aircraft are parked. Invisible 'wheels' is a good option. I have some other thoughts, but I haven't tried them yet. FC

Ah, specular mapping... FC

I've seen size comparison charts on this thing...it's bigger than the original PSP-1000. I'm not getting one...I stopped lugging the original PSP around a while ago once my phone could do everything my PSP could do except play 3D games well. That's the only thing cell phones still don't quite do well yet...iPhone included, mainly because on screen controls suck. FC

Where's Maverick and Goose? 'Top Gun' footage used in Chinese Air Force exercise news story. FC

Sure...you can make 'invisible' parts that are interlinked with your visible parts and animate them. But in the case you are asking about the question is what are you going to tie the animation to? If you simply make it tied to a manual animation key (like opening canopies) it won't work. FC

Well, in a perfect world, a modder would update the package internally then simply reupload and adjust the package's release notice. In other words, the one version you find is the most current version there is...you can look at the F-15, Super Hornet and F-111 packages as examples. However, this can cost considerable time and bandwidth. A separate category just for updates sounds nice in theory, but I'll put money no one would look there anyway, or they would assume the update contains the complete package...which it wouldn't. The best thing is find the initial package and then run a search in the forums or the release thread for updates. FC