FastCargo

Exactly. One can certainly look at programs where much ado was made (MiG 1.42, S-47, Lavi) but nothing actually came of it. The T-50 and J-20 may be demonstrators, may be prototypes that may point in a particular direction of aircraft evolution, but until you see production examples rolling off the assembly line, it's all speculation. FC

"Fisher" price "Curtains" - First female B-1 crewmember, required reinstallation of toliet privacy curtains easter "Bunny" "Cuddles" caudell "Huggy" huggans "CJ" - Continuous Jam on the radio (bad comm discipline) causai "Moto" "D-Day" "DD" - Dead Dave - Was actually clinically dead during water training accident...recovered of course "Crash" "Thor" "Slo Mo" "Random" - Under stress tended to mix up call sign numbers on radio "Kitten" "Thorton" melon "Baja" - Went 'off roading' in an F-15 "Robo" "Chemo" - yep, looks like a chemo therapy patient cinamon "Toast" I've got tons more... FC

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, The Telegraph (UK) Armoured vehicles will use a new technology known as "e-camouflage" which deploys a form "electronic ink" to render a vehicle "invisible". Highly sophisticated electronic sensors attached to the tank's hull will project images of the surrounding environment back onto the outside of the vehicle enabling it to merge into the landscape and evade attack. The electronic camouflage will enable the vehicle to blend into the surrounding countryside in much the same way that a squid uses ink to help as a disguise. Unlike conventional forms of camouflage, the images on the hull would change in concert with the changing environment always insuring that the vehicle remains disguised. In Helmand, for example, all armoured vehicle have desert sand coloured camouflage, which is of little use in the "Green Zone", an area of cultivation where crops are grown and the Taliban often hide. Up until recently such concepts were thought to be the stuff of science fiction but scientists at the defence company BAE Systems now believe battlefield "invisibility" will soon become science fact. Scientists at the BAE hope the new technology will be available to use with the British Army fighting in Southern Afghanistan and in future conflicts. The concept was developed as part of the Future Protected Vehicle programme, which scientists believe, will transform the way in which future conflicts will be fought. The programme is based around seven different military vehicles, both manned and unmanned, which will be equipped with a wide variety of lethal and none lethal weapons. The unmanned vehicles or battlefield robots will be able to conduct dangerous missions in hostile areas, clear minefields and extract wounded troops under fire. The vehicles include: * Pointer: an agile robot which can take over dirty, dull or dangerous jobs, such as forward observation and mine clearance. * Bearer: a modular platform which can carry a range of mission payloads, such as protected mobility, air defence and ambulance; * Wraith: a low signature scout vehicle; * Safeguard: an ultra-utility infantry carrier or command & control centre; * Charger: a highly lethal and survivable reconfigurable attack vehicle; * Raider: a remotely or autonomously controlled unmanned recce and skirmishing platform – similar in design to the "Batmobile" * Atlas: a convoy system which removes the driver from harm's way. BAE's Future vehicle project is, in part, a reaction to the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) 'Capability Vision' for armoured vehicles, designed to spur development along different paths from the MoD's previous research. Commanders are aiming for a prototype within four years and an experimental operational capacity by 2013. The brief is for a lightweight vehicle, weighing 30 tonnes, powered by a hybrid electric drive, with the same effectiveness and survivability of a current main battle tank. The UK's current tank, the Challenger 2, weighs 62.5 tonnes, and runs a 1,200hp V12 diesel engine. Britain's current fleet of armoured vehicles are also close to approaching the end of their service life and armoured vehicles designed specifically for use in Helmand, such as the hugely successful Mastiff, may be inappropriate for use in other operational theatres. Scientists at BAE are also looking at a number of revolution battlefield inventions which will increase troop protection as well as making the vehicles more lethal. One concept being developed is to develop technologies, which will cut the use of fuel on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, the cost of fuel is 50 times that of the pump price. All fuel currently used by NATO troops comes in via road convoys which are often attacked by insurgents which are responsible for 80 per cent of US casualties. Scientists are close to developing a form of transparent armour - much tougher than bullet proof glass – which could be used in turrets of on the sides of armoured vehicles which would improve the situational awareness of troops inside. Also being developed is a technology known as "biometric integration which uses advanced algorhythms to analyse crowds and to search for potential threats from suicide bombers by analyzing suspicious behavior in groups or individuals. Electronic scanners would search for suspicious behavior, inappropriate clothing or individuals on wanted lists who can be identified through facial or iris recognition. The information would then be displayed on screen within vehicle or handheld vehicles carried by dismounted troops. Hisham Awad, the head of the Future Protected Vehicle project said: "The trick here is to use machines to do what they are best at (and humans are not) - ploughing very quickly through dull, repetitive data to strip out the overwhelming bulk which is of no use and would take a long time and enormous human resources to process. "Then you can quickly bring human intelligence to bear where it excels - making life-or-death decisions based on 'real time' information on suspicious activity flagged up by the machines."

I'm pretty sure by making a M-117 guided by GPS, you turned it from a BOMB into a EOGB. Did the F-100 carry EOGBs? FC

Lexx, Though interesting, I'm not sure why you did that. I experimented with using the F-111 cockpit and found the pilots had to sit much too close together for it to look correct. The B-1B cockpit included with the B-70 download is a much better fit for several reasons: 1. Size - the spacing between pilots and overall size of the cockpit is a much closer representation to the actual B-70 cockpit. 2. Layout - The B-1B cockpit is a derivative of the B-1A cockpit, itself a follow on from the XB-70...all developed by the same maker (North American Aviation then Rockwell). Take a look at the family genes: XB-70 B-1A B-1B Note that the primary instrument layout are all very similar, as well as the locations of things like the fuel panel, engine gauges, etc. One thing that isn't shown here was that there was a proposal for the Valkyrie (noted in the XB-70 book I mentioned in another thread) of using tape for engine gauges instead of round dials...you can see that was carried over into the B-1. 3. Functionality - Engine monitoring (4 instead of 2), fuel usage, and weapon stations are closer to correct displays using the B-1B cockpit vs the F-111. In addition, I recolored the interior of the Valkyrie to match the B-1B pit, as well as redid the Mach tape and calibrated it so that it shows an accurate Mach number. Though I can appreciate the work you did, I'm just surprised you did it...the B-1B pit is better fit overall. Heck, if you wanted to remove the radar displays, you can go to the B-1B pit OUT file and find the radar screen nodes and move them yourself. FC

I'll believe it when I see production aircraft rolling off the line with reasonable cost and full certification. FC

Interesting. I knew they were being used as companion trainers for the F-22s...but aggressors too? Well, for WVR combat, they could work pretty good. They're basically EM silent, and nose on, they're pretty much invisible at anything over about a mile. Also, they have some special equipment on some of the Holloman birds, so they could be used to simulate different kinds of threats for very cheap. Also, even in Fighter Lead In, anyone going to F-22s automatically gets 2v1 sorties as part of their syllabus training in T-38s. FC

I'd imagine IP law can get kind of expensive. There have been documented cases of free addons incorporated into payware releases (with the author's permission) that was later revoked by the former freeware author...causing all sorts of legal trouble. The way some payware has been able to get around this is actually hire the freeware folks. Based on the revenue stream, I'd imagine TK can't afford the legal fees or hiring additional personnel...therefore, it's easier and safer to develop stuff in house. Also, TKs business model is to develop in areas that other sim companies aren't addressing. That's why the SF series address the early 60s to late 70s era of flying...because no one else does. At the time FE entered development, OFF didn't exist as payware, and ROF didn't exist at all. That has now changed. Also, the advantage FE has of addressing less known areas of WWI doesn't translate into increased sales, for that very reason...it's lesser known. FE wouldn't have been developed at all if not for the investment of said individual talked about eariler. It sucks, but ultimately, it is a business, and that requires making money. If the audience isn't there in sufficient numbers, especially if there are some deeper alternatives out there, that part of the business will get neglected. FC

The only way to get close to such a thing is using these parameters: But the LaunchAll=TRUE parameter is all or nothing, either the aircraft must all use the Takeoff[xx] parameters (in which case each aircraft must have a Takeoff slot - up to 16 that ALL have to be on the runway), or go back to the taxiway shuffle. FC

You copied way too much of the aircraft data.ini to the new aircraft data.ini, this is why your data.ini file is all screwed up. What you SHOULD have done instead is construct the stock ALBIII aircraft entry. The best way would have been to extract the stock ALBIII aircraft data.ini and put it into your stock ALBIII aircraft directory. Then made a full copy of that directory, renaming it to the desired aircraft. Then rename the basic ini file to the same name as the directory. You now have a basic, working aircraft. Then, if you want to copy/paste the flight characteristics, you need to be very specific. Do NOT copy any lines that reference specific mesh names, because I can almost guarantee the mesh names aren't the same...that's where you are getting visual problems. FC

"I say you log off and nuke the entire computer from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." FC

RAR is a type of archive format, like a zip file. Use 7-zip or WinRAR to open it. FC

Henrik, Yea buddy! I was thinkin that myself...though it made the work on a certain prop model unnecessary... FC

I think you still need the Taxi spots... FC

I would recommend it highly. It might cost about the same, but usually the aircraft are nicer, if not necessarily IFR capable. FC

STORM, All those TaxiHead entries are for taxiing. Only the very first position in the list will aircraft takeoff from (assuming you don't use the Takeoff[xx] positional parameter). The rest of the aircraft will each taxi to that position, then start their takeoff roll. The TakeoffHead/TakeoffTail=XX,YYYY parameters represent a line drawn between two points on the runway. The points are coordinates in meters from the 'zero' point on the runway, XX represents left/right,YYYY represents back/forth. The aircraft will attempt its takeoff roll down that 'line'. FC

You have never been gliding I take it? I've roared through valleys at 300 feet and Mach 1+. I've sliced through 40k+ feet, turning around to see my own curving contrail in the sky at 3G and Mach 1.2. I've seen the 'northern lights' while cruising at altitude in the dead of night. I've chased the puffies, leaving valleys of air with my wake, done loops, rolls, spins. 1 meter close formation in the weather, just enough to see lead's wingtip light and that was it... Putted around in the pattern in a Piper Arrow, a Piper Seminole and a T-41C. Went to Napa Valley in a Grumman Traveler...putting over San Francisco bay at 500 feet, 60 knots with the top open, feeling the cool sea breeze and looking down to see the fog tendrils slowly snaking their way into the bay, cresting over the Golden Gate bridge... Even lucky enough to scam a DACT ride in an F-16D while I was on Spring Break oh so long ago...confirming right there and then what I wanted to do in life. Gone fast on the ground too, dirt bikes, street bikes, sports cars, muscle cars, convertibles...most of them (other than the dirt bike) I've had at 140+ MPH at one point or another. My fondest memories however, are of the times I went gliding...soaring. After detaching from the tow plane, catching a thermal to ride up, hearing nothing but the breeze swishing over the airframe, seeing the turn and slip indicator (a piece of yarn on the nose) flutter with your speed. No engine noise, hardly any wind noise...like sailing, but with a far better view. Away from your problems, they seem small, up there. Alone, with your thoughts, admiring the beauty of the world. Surface transportation will never impress me, no matter how fast it goes, how fancy it is, or how much it costs. FC

DA, Unless you're making 3d models, the information I posted isn't really relevant. The exception might be for stock models, there may only be a limited amount you can put on per mesh. FC

Guys, check this out...TK has made a new exporter and has added SEVERAL new features: Some of the highlights include: Specular mapping - You can now use bitmaps or JPGs to determine how 'shiny' something is...it no longer requires it to be hardcoded in the LOD file. This is perfect for aircraft where some versions had shiny paint, others had dull paint, or different parts of the paint job were shiny or dull depending on the user. Plus Julhelm will stop whining about not being able to do it this way... Decal limits...because of these newer parameters, meshes may have more limits on amount of decals...future modelers take note. Vertex animation - Scaling has been supported for a long time (used in nozzles) but now individual manipulation is supported. This is great for flexible things like cloth, drag chutes...and wings. Large aircraft structures can now be made to bend seamlessly verses having very obvious pivots. Time to play... FC

Piecemeal, It is an advisory only. It doesn't come up because you have something on your system. I get the same message. I think it's tied to specific files, not specific users. FC

I doubt it's real, but it sure looks funny...:). FC

I've jailbroken an iTouch, it's no big deal. Just follow the steps exactly. And an iTouch as far as I can tell can run all the apps the comparable version of the iPhone can, except for those requiring the 'phone' parts. Anyway, there are homebrew apps you can run on a jailbroken iTouch that cannot be run on a normal iTouch. I don't have it here in front of me, so I can't give you examples right off the bat. Bottom line, it increases your options and gives Apple the finger, which I'm always looking to do. FC

That is awesome... FC

It doesn't matter, but you still need decals for the serial numbers...unless every plane in your squadron has the same number. FC

F-106 and F-105 are both single engine. Considering the A-5 was made by North American, is roughly the same size as the F-108 would have been, it seems the better fit. FC