FastCargo

DEVIL11, Look in your Options screen at the Controls section, Customize Keyboard. Find the key that says 'Take Screenshot'. While playing the sim, use that key to take a screenshot...it will save a picture of the screen to your 'Screenshots' folder. Then exit the game, go to that folder, and find your screenshot and post it here. FC

Lexx, what is it with you and shiny objects? Streak, yea, my model rocketry experience was pretty similar (X-15, Astron Transport,etc) though I wasn't a big fan of payloaders. Even did the handheld 'tube' launch rocket when I was young and stupid...however, I didn't set anything on fire! But instead of 3 "D"s in series, I did 4 "D"s in parallel on a 1/5 scale Estes Patriot: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes92/92est2.html Technically, I was heading into High Power Rocketry...that thing roared off the pad and was awesome in flight. She had a couple of successful flights before I retired her...she sits as a display piece. I was big into scale rockets, Saturn V, Saturn IB, Bomarc, Tomahawk, etc. Custom built a lot of rockets too, even scale models. It's funny, hearing your story about setting something on fire makes me lean even more toward being an NAR member. Unlike when I was a kid, as an older adult, there are serious liability concerns. I like the idea of having cheap insurance if something happens ($60 a year for NAR membership which includes 2 million dollar insurance policy...not worried about hurting someone, but a fire...yea I could see that in a dry TX summer). Also, though model rocketry in general has been in decline, HPR has increased a lot, and all sorts of cottage industries have sprung up. There are companies that make replicas of old Estes kits, or specialized parts, or conversions, etc. Just bought myself an Astron Transport...I plan to use the info to 'upscale' it to something larger. And now with modern printers, decals are no longer a hindrance...just make your own! FC

Okay. Next time, follow the installation instructions for the Classified Mission Mod precisely. The mod CANNOT screw up your install if you follow the instructions...it has been ops tested several dozen times and was written to be 'new guy' friendly. FC

Okay. Lets start at the beginning. What operating system and what SF2 sims do you have? FC

Okay. Make sure the Options.ini file in your mod directory is not set to 'Read-Only' in the Properties panel. FC

Okay, you need to slow down and start again. You should have not screwed anything up...this mod was meant to be self contained to avoid any conflicts. Did you read the entire readme, slowly and carefully and COMPLETELY? FC

As my interest has resurged in rocketry, I've been amazed at the advances in High Power Rocketry (or HPR, or LDRS). This was done almost 2 years ago in honor of the Moon landing...you REALLY need to see the beginning to get an idea of how big a 1/10 scale Saturn V is: and the related article: The story of the biggest scale model rocket ever built Wish I had seen this in person...other videos really show how LOUD this thing was when it flew. And this is a hobby... FC

Thread from the dead...the last post (except for today) was 5 years ago... FC

The idea of a dedicated LIFT trainer is to teach the basics of BFM without the expense of a trainer version of the front line fighter such as a F-16 or MiG-29. It would really depend on how their basic pilot training structure is setup. If they get a significant amount of BFM training in basic pilot training, they may not need a dedicated LIFT trainer (the USN does it this way). If they only get the very basics in pilot training, then they may need a LIFT program (the USAF does it this way). Also, you may be able to use your LIFT aircraft for basic flying training, in which case, increased cost is offset by increased utility. The political angle is an important one...Poland is using F-16s, and a lot of their senior cadre of pilots went through Western training/trainers during integration (T-38 PIT/IFF, F-16 RTU). So that may lean them toward something like the T-50, in that we are looking at it for replacement of our T-38 fleet, and it shares common design philosophies with the F-16. FC

Hey, that's a pretty lookin jet there! FC

Or use the Tools section in xNormal to convert from a heightmap to a normal map. FC

Have plenty of games on Steam and it works like a champ. Play online/offline, easy as pie. You can even backup the games locally, save the gcf files to a DVD. If your computer goes TU, on your new machine, reinstall your Steam client, then copy the gcf files to your folder, and Steam reauthenticates them and you're good to go. Or, if you're lazy like me, same situation but you didn't back up your gcfs, simply reinstall the Steam client, log-in, tell it which games you want to reinstall, and walk away...get some sleep and you're good to go the next day. No muss, no fuss, and no damn DVDs/CDs to carry around...a big deal when on a trip. FC

Start right here... http://combatace.com/topic/20789-how-to-make-ai-planes-flyable/ FC

Reality check: No society has ever reduced it's need for energy except by collapse. FC

Well, according to this map, like you said, you live right under an MTR: Specifically, an SR MTR, which means the training is done at a max of 250 kts and 1500 feet. So that would explain the slow speed and quite possibly the quietness (low throttle setting). Also, the MTR is multi-directional in that area, which explains the different directions you saw the aircraft flying. Also, if something is truly clandestine, you wouldn't want to run with lights on (like you said the target had) or near a major airport (KMSP). My opinion is you saw a conventional training sortie of something like a B-2 or a C-17. Yea, I know, you said it wasn't those aircraft. I'm not disputing what you saw...I'm just saying what the probabilities are based on Occam's razor. FC

Where in Minnesota do you live (approximately...I'm not looking to send black helos your way)? I have an inkling what it is. FC

Thanks for the update Dan. FC

Caesar's assessment is right on the mark. To date, the Russians have launched 96 folks, NASA about 277. 4 Russians have died, 14 NASA astronauts have died. In terms of overall percentage...guess what, the numbers are about the same: 4/96 = 4.2% 14/277 = 5.1% And part of that was in a vehicle far larger, far heavier, and more capable than the Soyuz (reusable, could carry a large payload and a large crew complement, and had bring back capability which was used). Did the Shuttle have its flaws...you betcha! I never liked the idea of a booster that can't be shut off on a man rated space vehicle. The idea of using wings to get down but not to get up means they are just dead weight on ascent. Not fully reusable because of politics (can't spend the money on the front end which results in compromises). But, there was nothing out there like it...the Russians tried it (which if you didn't notice, looked a LOT like our shuttle) but ultimately gave up on it. Taking a man, strapping him to an explosive laden vehicle, accelerating him to Mach 25 into an environment with no oxygen and high radiation, getting rid of all that energy bringing him back down...what part of ANY of that sounds safe? Astronauts knew the risks...and went anyway. I know the risks of airline flying, of military flying, where on certain days you can do everything right...and still end up a statistic. That's part of the job. Could there be better options? Sure...I still like the two part system...a small manned spacecraft (heck, a manned version of the X-37B would be nice) for getting your crew up, and a Big Dumb Booster (BDB) for bringing up the freight. For the manned system, smaller means lighter means simpler means cheaper. Will there be follow ons to the Shuttle that will do it better? I hope so...but the Shuttle did it first. Someone has to be first. FC

But we are talking cosmological timescales, not human timescales, nor geologic timescales. The basis of the Fermi paradox is simply time...there has been more than enough time for a galactic sized civilization to rise several instances over, even using our current technological level. But there has been no conclusive evidence of any of that anywhere. Again, I'm not saying that life doesn't exist, even the Fermi paradox doesn't say that. But it asks...where are they? FC

Sure...those parameters can be adjusted in the ini file...at least I think they can... FC

Well, it did carry 7 at a time, so 2 accidents can do that to your numbers. And it could do things that nothing else could. FC

Chris, First, it sounds like you are at least somewhat familiar with flying in general (since at one point you used to play Falcon 3/4), so this will help a lot. Second, use FSX to get familiar again with flying...it has excellent tutorials on how aircraft work. This will help you get familiar with how an aircraft handles. Third, I would recommend sticking with the stock sim...you can either use WOI with it's expansion pack or SF2:I with it's expansion pack, both will work with WinXP/Vista/7. SF2:I brings more eye candy and AI improvements to the table, but for your purposes, WOI with the expansion pack may be all you need. I would also stay away from modding at the moment, until you get familiar with the sim. The expansion packs add the Suez crisis to the WOI/SF2:I period of flying, which may be what you need for historical reference. As far as flying and fighting, there are tons of references out there and it can get confusing. WOI/SF2:I come with PDF manuals, but they will mainly concern themselves with basic operations and weapons employment. Probably the best way to start out is Google the term 'air combat maneuvering' and go from there. FC

Nothing is stopping you from doing that yourself if you would like. FC

This is about what I get on average with the Classified Mission Mod...there was one point I got more coverage, but I don't remember what I tweaked to get it and I haven't been able to duplicate it (all post Jan 2011 patch). FC

The FMs have had pretty substantial revisions since that KAW mod was put out. Most straight wing aircraft will no longer fly correctly, if at all. FMs are frequently an art and science. I would recommend starting with an aircraft that works in Oct 08 level and is similar to the F-80 and use those values first. If you have SF2I:EXP1, you might be able to use the Meteor F8s FM as a baseline. FC