FastCargo

Russ, couple of things:

First, if you use an Animation slot as pure animation (ie not tied to a control surface or landing gear/hook), any weapons attached to that node will not rotate properly. We encountered this with the Hornet and Super Hornets.

Second...silly question, but did you put the SystemNames for the Airbrake and Hook in the appropriate component section?

FC

Close.

Radar is like a flashlight...but they can only see you if your 'beam' hits them. Unlike a real flashlight which can be seen without the person seeing it being lit up by the person holding the flashlight, a radar beam will only be seen if it strikes a sensor directly. There are some exceptions having to do with sidelobe bleeding of radar beams, but that is the general principle.

Noise jamming is close to the smokescreen effect you describe. Can highlight your general position to others. Closer in, can mask your exact position. Closer yet, and they can see you again. Missiles that have Home On Jam capability can actually use this jamming as a beacon to home in on.

Deception jamming is significantly different. Basically, you can analyze the radar (or other signals) and transmit a return signal that is different from your actual position, velocity, or both. A recent test in Austin showed the capability of using deception jamming GPS signals to lure a drone in a different direction than intended. There is suspicion that Iran may have done something similar when they captured that stealth drone.

FC

Guys, though I agree with the sentiment...George Carlin didn't write it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040930232902/http://www.georgecarlin.com/home/dontblame.html

One of the more embarrassing items making the internet/e-mail rounds is a sappy load of s**t called "The Paradox of Our Time." The main problem I have with it is that as true as some of the expressed sentiments may be, who really gives a s**t? Certainly not me.

 

I figured out years ago that the human species is totally f***ed and has been for a long time. I also know that the sick, media-consumer culture in America continues to make this so-called problem worse. But the trick, folks, is not to give a f***. Like me. I really don't care. I stopped worrying about all this temporal bulls**t a long time ago. It's meaningless. (See the preface of "Braindroppings.")

 

Another problem I have with "Paradox" is that the ideas are all expressed in a sort of pseudo-spiritual, New-Age-y, "Gee-whiz-can't-we-do-better-than-this" tone of voice. It's not only bad prose and poetry, it's weak philosophy. I hope I never sound like that.

Here is the snopes.com entry, including the original text and proper attribution (Dr. Bob Moorehead):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/paradox.asp

Though I probably burst some bubbles, the words themselves still resonate.

Have a Happy New Year!

FC

Happy New Year guys - 2013 really cant be worse than 2012!

Dude...don't EVER say such things...

Happy New Year folks!

FC

Sigh...

The Arrow's story has almost been raised to mythical proportions. As such, some details are overlooked that shouldn't be:

Here are a few books in dead tree editions I have on the Arrow:

http://www.amazon.com/Avro-Arrow-Story-Evolution-Extinction/dp/1550460471/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356982871&sr=1-2&keywords=cf-105+arrow

http://www.amazon.com/Storms-Controversy-Secret-Arrow-Revealed/dp/1554886988/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356982964&sr=1-14&keywords=cf-105+arrow

There are several others that Amazon doesn't list, including one put out by the 'Arrowheads' themselves.

When one looks at the Arrow program as a whole, with an unbiased view, you come to the following overall conclusion:

The Arrow died due to bad timing...pure and simple.

The various nails in the coffin included:

1) Pushing the envelope in technology. As many other technological programs show, if you are at the bleeding edge, your R&D was going to always be high. The Arrow was a tech pusher...though not in speed as some suggest. The F-4 (which first flew only 2 months after the CF-105) and the F-106A (single engine!) both could match the CF-105 in raw speed. This may have been different for the Mark II, but it wasn't going to be by much. The fly by wire system on the other hand, was innovative (though not the first of its kind either). However, the thing that was eating up funds was not the aerodynamics, or even the engines, but the weapon system. The design was initially designed around the Falcon/Hughes missile/radar combo. But the RCAF wanted the in development MX-1179/Sparrow II combo. Unlike the former combo, which was almost at the production stage, the latter was running into development problems, not having even been tested yet, to the point where the USN abandoned the development in 1956, and Canadair was brought in to take over development. ALL of this cost money, most of which hadn't been budgeted for.

2) Constant design changes and requirements. In addition to the above mentioned changes to the weapons/radar combo, the engine changes had an impact on the development of the Arrow. The original specification called for the use of the Rolls Royce RB106, with a backup of the Wright J67. Unfortunately, BOTH engines were canceled by their respective countries (UK and US)...leaving the Arrow without an engine. Therefore, the J75 was used for the initial aerodynamic models (Mk I), with an Orenda developed TR13 (Iroquois). Of course, all the changes PLUS the cost for the engines development were rolled into the overall R&D cost of the Arrow.

3) Belt tightening. The Canadian, US, and UK governments were all in a period of budget axing in the late 1950s. The UK's 1957 Defence White Paper, the recession in the US in 1958-59, the Diefenbaker's targeting of large government projects (the Arrow, a giant postal "million dollar monster" sorting machine) all added to the atmosphere of shedding projects which were considered to not be cost effective. Regardless of what one thinks, defense budgets are still subject to justifiable cost effectiveness. It isn't a question of good, but if it will be 'good enough'...or enough of an increase in capability to offset the additional cost of development.

4) Missiles. Everyone knows the famous story of the rollout of the Arrow being upstaged by the launch of Sputnik the same day. However, the launch of Sputnik had farther reaching implications. The Russians proved they could launch a satellite in orbit...who knew if a nuclear weapon would be next. Manned interceptors couldn't do dick against a warhead coming in at Mach 25...or so the thinking started to shift. Were manned nuclear bombers a thing of the past? And by extension, manned interceptors?

5) Lack of export partners. Canada had some unique requirements for their interceptor that other countries' aircraft couldn't fulfill to the extent the RCAF wanted (resulting in development of the Arrow in the first place). One was the large, sparsely populated area needing coverage...dictating 2 engines (for redundancy), large size (for fuel capacity), and high speed (for area coverage). However, to get this capability, some areas were minimized. First, I have not found diagrams or documentation anywhere confirming some sort of external hardpoint system. The only thing I have seen was one notational drawing of carrying an external fuel tank on the centerline. There were notes that four 1000 pound bombs could be carried in the weapons bay (part of a 'clip on bay' system), but that part had not been fleshed out by the time the Arrow was canceled. Which made it an aircraft uniquely suited to Canada's requirements...and very few other countries' for the expense involved. All one has to do is think about those requirements and realize Canada's were simply unique, requiring an aircraft that was essentially a unitasker...it could do one thing really well. But one only has to look at the F-4 to see an aircraft that could do a similar mission (although with less range), but with significant flexibility with all the external hardpoints available. It gave 9/10s of what the CF-105 could do, but had additional capability built in. Don't let anyone fool you...external hardpoints are not simply 'tacked on'. If they are supposed to carry a decent amount of ordinance, they have to be designed or redesigned for.

In the end, due to a combination of all these factors, the CF-105 was canceled. Lest you think this was unique to Canada at the time, one only has to look at the cancellation of the F-103, F-108, B-70 programs. All fell victim to various factors.

In hindsight, the reasons for cancellation in the short term were correct. There never ended up being the hordes of Soviet bombers on the horizon. Missiles did end up being the primary delivery system for nuclear weapons, with bombers as a secondary threat. One can argue the need for the long range, high speed interceptor has faded from history, especially as missiles, (including surface to air) continue to improve in capability.

The longer range implications of the cancellation are more unclear. Certainly one can argue the 'brain drain' to the US was significant, especially as how many engineers ended up working for NASA. How much of an impact on the US space program is debatable (just ask Gepard about the German contributions...). Intangibles include things like development of home grown national defense and technology capability, national pride, economic impacts. Realistically, how much could Canada afford of home grown technologies is also debatable. For instance, many of the more advanced drugs Canada buys for its National Health Care System were developed by US companies, with the US footing most of the R&D, allowing Canada to buy at sale prices. Also, legitimate debates have popped up about host Olympics funding verses health care funding in Canada. If your finances are that tight...

So, put away the tinfoil...there are plenty of legitimate (at the time) reasons the Arrow died. You don't need to make up vast conspiracies when the boring truth is much simpler.

One final note.

Those with love for older aircraft often state that "If they only did this, this and this that it could still fly...". Does anyone notice why companies fight so hard to keep production lines open? Or why the most evolved version of the F-5 was basically a new aircraft (F-20) and had to be done by Northrop itself? Or why reverse engineering the F-5E by the Iranians results in an aircraft that really isn't any different other than the twin tails and slightly revised intakes? Or look at the Super Hornet, which essentially is a new aircraft. It wasn't cheap to develop, and still had to be flight tested and certified with the various weapon stores ('toed out' pylons anyone)? And that was from an aircraft that was still in production...not a 50 year old design.

One word: Expense. It is expensive to develop a military combat aircraft. If an Arrow were to be built today, all new jigs and production lines would have to be designed and built. The design would have to be engineered to have external hardpoints, stealth features, increased visibility requirements (note any new fighters NOT having a 'bubble' canopy), and avionic/ergonomic improvements. Who here thinks the resulting design would be an Arrow in name only?

FC

I just tested using Google and am not seeing a redirect.

Also, just typed directly into the url window with the correct result.

FC

If you buy A-10C from Steam, download the A-10C module from ED directly and use the Steam key to activate it.

The Steam version of A-10C is not directly compatible with DCS World.

FC

Some initial impressions (note, this is not a review).

Models are a bit on the low poly side.

Variety of missions (air to air-intercept, CAP, non controllable wingman / air to ground-CAS and strike). Multiple weapons including cannon, A2A missiles, free fall bombs, FFARs.

Can takeoff and land (though a lot of missions start with you in the air), looks like you may have carrier ops.

Cockpit views (non working instruments...basically looks like camera is placed in the external model). But maneuvering causes cockpit view to shift as if you were sliding in the seat a bit...nice touch.

Other views limited to outside with only horizontal panning, and a 'flyby view'.

FM seems a bit simple, even for a mobile game...tends to be way too responsive to throttle changes. Roll rates are nice.

Horizon is glitchy...lots of flashing polygons.

XP mechanic is interesting...build up XP to release additional mission types (initially only cleared for some A2A and CAS...no strike missions available). Additionally, initially only F-100 is available. Not sure if any other aircraft can be earned through XP or not.

My overall impression so far is 'overly ambitious'. Trying to do everything, but the execution needs some polish.

This is early in gameplay, and so it'll be a while before I earn enough XP to see if I can unlock some other stuff.

FC

Merry Christmas and Happy New Backup!

And damn Steam their constant sales!

FC

If the model has multiple LODs, try adjusting the ini entry so it only uses the first entry all the way out to max distance and comment out the other entries to see if that fixes the issue.

FC

"The ability to start a petition, or even an internet meme, is insignificant next to the power of lolcats."

That's always the big question with 'Freemium' business models....

FC

No, there is no setting to tell them to use specific ordinance.

FC

If it is a young kid, I can understand because they have to think in 3D and realize the Earth's rotation and the moon's orbit are not related.

But a clear thinking adult?....

I think the only way you could really explain this to a person having trouble grasping the concept would be to have a model of the Earth-Moon system, with a 'Sun' to provide a single light source.

FC

Anyone who downloads this, please report back here and let us know how it is...see if it's worth a review or not.

FC

Ain't going to happen...time period won't cover it.

FC

I would recommend then staying at altitude, doing a couple of 360s while your speed bleeds off, then descending and landing.

Until the FM is adjusted, that's what you can do...or use Alt-N to get you where you want to be.

FC

Heh, ya...gotta do it every once in a while....:).

FC

AIM-9X is post-Cold War by about 10 years.

FC

I tried Combat Mission back in the day...but I couldn't do the turn-based thing where I could do nothing for 60 seconds while my orders were executed.

Those were LONG 60 seconds...especially when I screwed up!

Stary, don't feel bad...I've only now finished Bioshock, Chronicles of Riddick:Assault on Dark Athena.

In the middle of HL2:EP2 and DX:HR. Just started Tomb Raider: Annversary.

Yea, I'm a bit behind....

FC

I've started reading reviews on it and all of them have been positive.

From what I've been able to gather...it is a wargame (say like Combat Mission), but played out like an RTS. Gameplay is similar to Company of Heroes, where either outright destruction of the enemy or capturing of various areas matter. There is no resource building per se...you have to be much more focused on resupply and repair of your forces. Also, there isn't much micromanagement of units...they tend to be pretty smart. Your job seems to be to get them where they need to be to be most effective. Arty is only good with good recon, command vehicles are very valuable...

Again, this is only based on what I've been able to gather so far. I'm scouring the various reviews and forums to get a truer take on what it entails.

Damn you Dave for bringing this up!

FC

If they haven't yet, they aren't going to be...it's been around for several months.

This isn't an FPS or RPG...it's a wargame with RTS elements.

FC

Damn, that looks insanely awesome!

I didn't see much in terms of the interface...is it similar in gameplay to Company of Heroes?

FC

I'd imagine TK was probably disappointed in the new terrain too. In terms of time invested verses public perception/reaction, he probably wished he hadn't spent that much time (and by extension, money) on it.

I'd have been happier with just the new water effects. The time spent on the Iceland terrain could have been spent otherwise squashing all the bugs that were in the initial release of SF2NA.

Also, I think constructive criticism is always good...sarcastic or hostile criticism is typically more counter productive. I think the biggest thing with any critique is just to remember what the goal of what you are commenting on is. TK from what I've read has always said the TW series is a game...or sim-lite, a budget title, and so has always made that his bottom line, even though there are a lot of realistic aspects of the TW series.

If that's good enough, then that's okay. If not, and you want to move on, that's good too. There is still a variety of stuff out there, and things like DCS look promising.

FC