FastCargo

As a human factors guy.... Different activities should require different interfaces. Most push button activities can have a touch screen button equivalent. In addition, designation of targets can probably be touch based unless there is a tight group. Remember, the human finger is NOT nearly as accurate as a cursor. A mouse or trackball is a great cursor manipulator because you can vary speed and direction with one input, verses slewing with a rocker switch which only gives you a fixed maximum and minimum speed of slew. I tend to be leery of voice interfaces for anything but the simplest command. Imagine trying to tell the computer to 'Change to frequency one three nine decimal five two'...and it gets it wrong. Verses typing it in or spinning a knob. I could be just an old fogey in that respect. Finally, some things must be manual control with very obvious levers reflecting the switch or control position. Stick, throttle, gear handle...and preferably, a guarded switch for weapons arming. These things need to have very obvious handles, with the position of the handle/switch giving instant feedback as to the status of that control, even in a cockpit full of smoke in the middle of the night. FC

Actually, you can have an engine fail due to overheating...but only the player's engine will do this. I experimented with this during testing of the KAW mod...it was possible to run the engine outside of limits for a period of time before it failed. Unfortunately, it tended to fail catastrophically, instead of just seizing. FC

I keep thinking I've been here just about as long as Typhoid...good God.... Lots of trimuph. Lots of tragedy. FC

Oh come on, really? FC

You got it... FC

Since about 2007 I think... http://combatace.com/topic/23082-calling-fastcargo/ Hopefully some kind soul will upload it here again...I have the source file somewhere in the archives. FC

You can have spinning engine fans without sacrificing anything else. FC

FC

Correct. But the game only supports 10 Animation calls. Frame 0 = Object with no animations Frame 1-10 = AnimationID=1 Frame 11-20 = AnimationID=2 etc,etc up to Frame 91-100 = AnimationID=10 FC

That was tail 85-0070, I believe the nose art was 'Excalibur'. She did go back to flying...in fact, I remember seeing her on the Dyess flight line. Based on later pics, it looks like she went to Ellsworth at some point before she got 'Boneyarded' in 2002 from what I understand. I actually knew the A/C who did that landing, but I couldn't remember his name to save my life. I've got video (somewhere) of one of our jets rolling out from a full aft wing sweep (67.5 degree) landing...looks pretty normal up until 20 minutes later when the landing gear catches fire. The wildest video of a Bone landing I've seen (and I haven't been able to find it ANYWHERE) was from when I watched it 20 years ago with a 55 degree aft wing sweep landing. The nose position and speed just looked WRONG. It was taken from the approach end of the runway and it was *%*^$# scary. FC

I believe that is the case. Plus, with these ultra rare cars, calling it a 'production' vehicle stretches the term a bit. FC

Sad. Rest in peace. FC

How did you test that if you don't mind me asking? I haven't installed DCS World under Steam, and right now it only shows the FC3 key. If I were to install DCS World under Steam, would my other keys show up? FC

That's pretty... FC

For those who wonder about purchasing from other sources than Eagle Dynamics directly, what I have noticed so far is that you only are purchasing an activation key. I bought A-10C and BS2 from GetGames, and just bought FC3 from Steam. I downloaded the modules directly from Eagle Dynamics, then activated them with the keys provided by GetGames and Steam. No muss, no fuss. GetGames sent me the keys via email, and Steam showed me the key once I put FC3 in my inventory (without installing it there). And they all played happily together in the native DCS World client. From what I understand (and I'm not an expert), ED actually gives keys to various retailers from its database, and so when those retailers have a sale, the keys should already be available to activate as soon as you get them. FC

I also want to thank folks for keeping us honest here at CA. We're human too, and sometimes things fall through the cracks. We want folks to know when something like this happens, it is not for any reason other than pure error...we want folks to be confident that our promotions are legitimate and that we do not intentionally cause problems for our members. FC

To be honest, what did you expect? TK himself has said there is not going to be a SF3....which sounds like to me that there won't be another major engine upgrade of any sort. As far as I can tell, TK has no interest in bringing in outside content or funding for his games. People have gone around and around on this and have always ended up in the same place with the same answer: "What is done is what can be afforded to do." Does everyone remember wanting a mission editor? TK said that they blew a bunch of time and money to make one, and hardly anyone bought it. Or how about SF2:NA with the new terrain, water effects, new damage rules for carriers and cruise missiles, new avionics, and new content? Remember the state it came out in and how buggy it was? I suspect he simply ran out of money and put it out just to pay the bills. Considering that TK has also given tacit approval to modify core files (exe, dll, etc) without distribution of stock files, I would postulate he's done with any major edits to the game engine. Unless he has something major up his sleeve, I suspect you'll only see new content, not any new engine changes. So, what are the options? 1) Make any future content compatible with the engine as it stands. 2) Modify the core engine yourself. 3) Move on to something like DCS. And before anyone makes the dumb statement of 'How hard can making core engine changes be?', you'll note I've asked several times here for anyone who programs core to pipe up...no one has. Making content is one thing...programming core is quite another. Now, I've been surprised before (TK's attitude toward core file modification was not what I expected), so I could be reading this wrong, but I think he's done with core changes. FC

Man, I still remember when the F-16 first came online all those years ago. All the model kits that came out in the prototype colors, and the pics of it with the black nose (Block 1). One of the funniest stories about the F-16 is being a fresh faced 19 year old getting a tour of the (then) GD factory in Fort Worth. And having grown up 2 miles away from MacDill, I knew a lot about the Viper, and most of it's variants, including things like the AFTI and CCV test beds. So it puzzled me why there were several 2 seater F-16s I saw on the assembly line that had 'spines' similar to the AFTI model. I was told by our annoyed GD representative in no uncertain terms that information on those birds was classified. I only found out MUCH later that they were F-16D 'Barak' models destined for Israel under the Peace Marble II program and that the extra avionics are still technically classified (though most suspect it is specialized Wild Weasel equipment). FC

There was also legal precedent set during the early 90s when Novalogic and LockMart tried to make the F-22 exclusive to them for computer games. The USAF and the USG basically said you can't do that with a taxpayer funded aircraft and squashed the effort. American companies aren't the only ones guilty of this...if you look in some of the AC series, you'll see in the credits licensing notes from Dassault, EADS, etc. So, someone, somewhere had to contact those companies to work out an agreement. This also happened on the civilian side with a few airlines who tried the same thing for MSFS. Apparently, that went away when someone figured out it was basically free advertising for the airlines. It seems like this is one of those things that could easily be solved. A company has to know that what's more of a benefit...free advertising and good will, or no exposure and ill will. If they are worried about copyright, just have them insert a 'not an official licensed product' or 'not endorsed' or some such language. I can understand enforcement of copyright (use it or lose it principle), but someone has to know that a small developer in a niche market isn't going to fork over a large licensing fee vs just dropping the aircraft instead. FC

For those curious about American pilots flying US marked recon Spitfires in WWII. FC

All that is happening here is validating the computer model...and how quickly the computers can get out of a situation. The fact that the F-35C can stay relatively stable even outside the envelope is note worthy. Also, something no one mentioned, is the shot where the F-35C is in a sustained negative 40-45 degree AOA flight. That's extremely impressive for an aircraft with no thrust vectoring. This more than likely means the AOA envelope is going to be very large. And realistically, the F-35 series is not an air superiority fighter...it is meant as a bomb truck, with some air to air capability. Just like an F-16. FC

You don't understand the system, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. FC

You do realize that is moot considering the pilot can see through the aircraft in all directions? FC

That Space Invaders video was awesome! Just heard these guys the other day for the first time when I saw this video: And the original version: And the Beer song: FC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VXmI74JFE FC