JediMaster

The paddles are definitely different to look at, and they don't feel the same using them (after all one is metal and the other plastic), but the actual interface might be the same. I'd have to look at both of mine more closely to see if I can tell, but I'm no engineer and I'm not going to disassemble either stick to get in there!

I know the Dhruv is a very recent design, so its crew crash safety features should be very modern and capable...as this proved. I'll bet in an old Huey or Aerospatiale the headline would've read "both crew killed".

That sounds about par for the course.

No, although SS usually does it by default as it renders the entire screen and then downsizes it while MS is just the edges. Objects like fences, leaves, powerlines, girders, etc that are rendered as a solid polygon but then have a clear texture in it that lets you see through it won't be affected by MS because they're not polygon edges. Both ATI and nvidia have this in their drivers now. It's called transparency FSAA in one and I forget what it's called in the other. In nvidia, you have 3 choices for it--off, SS, or MS. This is independent of the main FSAA setting, but I believe the main FSAA does have to be at least activated. You can do MS on everything but those textures and then set them to SS, for example.

Yeah, I have to figure out when I want to take the plunge and upgrade myself.

I'd like to see commercial space travel to the moon made affordable before I die, but I doubt it will happen soon enough.

On the plus side, that F-15E was passed over and the other F-15E's firstborn were slain in their sleep...

If you have FSAA turned on, try turning it off. If you have transparency/alpha texture FSAA on, turn that off first. I get a similar effect in Arma 2 if I turn on transparency FSAA with the trees/foliage. It seems to be a driver/shader bug with some drivers and programs.

Actually, that is what the Ares plan is for. The Ares I will carry the "Apollo on steroids" 6-man semi-reusable capsule to orbit/the space station. I say semi because apparently they will use them for a few missions, but not dozens. The problem with the shuttle (ok, one of many!) is that to be reusable requires the structure be built stronger and heavier than if it was only meant to take one ascent/reentry. Again, more dead weight. The metric of maintenance man hours/flight hour on the shuttle is literally the worst in history. That is what was miscalculated. The Ares V will be the unmanned heavy lifter that will take cargo and later things like landers and Mars cruise vehicles to orbit. It will be bigger and heavier than Saturn V...if it's ever built. The original NASA plan, if you look it up from the late 70s, is 50 missions/yr with a fleet of 4 shuttles! That's 1 flight/orbiter/month! I don't recall what the fastest turnaround for a shuttle has been, but it's well over 4 weeks. There was also this idea that frequent flights = cheap flights, which was totally wrong. Each flight (now) costs roughly $500m, so if you fly 6 times in a year that's $3b spent purely for flying. While the dollar amount was lower in the 80s, I don't know what the inflation adjusted figures are, so I've no idea if it's more or less expensive in real terms now. Is Ares I a step backwards technologically from the shuttle? Yes. However, after Columbia NASA wasn't given the mandate "go design something better, here's the money to do it", it was told "go make something safer using the same money you've always had WHILE still flying the shuttle." NASA has been eager to retire the shuttle solely because they want to put that money towards Ares, but according to the report that's still not enough. NASA needs just over $3b more/year to get us to the Moon in another decade or so. They may not get it. Maybe NASA should've changed its name to AIG? Then it would've had the equivalent of FIVE YEARS of its current budget thrown at it for nothing, instead of having to argue why HUMAN BEINGS LEAVING EARTH is worth the kind of money they throw at Cash for Clunkers with a week of deliberation!

Are you guys who're talking about the advanced shaders thing using Vista? I ask because I'm still running XP and didn't see and real differences in speed that I noticed, not that SF2 has ever run poorly.

Weather here has just been like standing in a wind tunnel all day. Clouds have never completely dissipated either. I hope it gets off tomorrow or Wednesday, because if they try to go Thursday my planned day at Tel IV is going to be postponed, and I just want to get this project with the telemetry data relay system over with already!

It's still 2 months till winter, how DARE it show up early!

Call Mulder and Scully! Er, Dunham and Bishop from Fringe Division! This is a clear case of missing time syndrome. I believe we're looking at the mass abduction of everyone on the plane!!!

FYI, the manuals in the SF2 directory explicitly state to install them in release order, and if you want to install an older one to merge (ie SF2V over SF2E or SF2E over SF2I)...don't. Uninstall the newer one, install the older one, install the newer one, install any patches that may be out. If you're installing SF2I last, no patches needed as of 10/26. If you're installing any BUT SF2I, the Jun 09 patch is the last.

I remember fondly the first time I used a nuke...firing an SRAM from my F-111 at an airfield buzzing with MiGs. Took out every building and vehicle there plus several MiGs already airborne...ahhhh... I also remember the first time I used it in CFS3 w/Firepower addon from my Ar-234B. Also awesome to behold.

Consensus is: yes, and certainly no less than 6 months if not longer.

I've been playing the campaign and have likewise discovered the annoying "can't have one guy die" issue. Makes me want to leave them behind.

Priceless!

The other song you hear at the beginning of the film (before Danger Zone starts) was just called the Top Gun theme was written by Harold Faltermeyer. He had another big hit with the Beverly Hills Cop song/theme Axel F.

Oh, and if you're looking to start from scratch (sounds like you are) you need to pick what era you want to fly in first. WWI? WWII? Jet age? Modern era? That will have a lot of bearing on what game you should pick.

That was some dreary weather. Wasn't that orange car the one seen in MI-3?

Although it doesn't really count as a single mission or even an air raid, the defense of Malta during WWII required a lot of balls, too! It was called "the unsinkable aircraft carrier" mostly because it had even fewer planes and resources available than most real aircraft carriers did! It took a long time before the Germans decided their efforts were best used elsewhere. I also agree to disagree on Op Moked and Barbarossa. While they were strategically very well done, tactically they were surprise attacks that were able to get most of their damage done before the enemy could rally an effective defense (unlike Ploesti in every way). Some lives were lost, but nowhere near as many, percentage wise, as was lost at Ploesti. Dave's focus was on the tactical aspects of the op (what the crews themselves faced) vs what the nation behind it actually achieved.

So, that one Mi-35 cost as much as TWO F-22s?!?!

Well it's easy to claim things about a plane that hasn't even flown yet. Proving it is one thing, putting it into mass production is another. Do they say what this thing is supposed to cost?

I think Aussies generally feel threatened by many of their neighbors for simple geographical reasons. Indonesia, India, and China alone represent close to 2.5 billion people, while Oz is a huge land mass with what, 200 people on it? They fear one of those countries deciding Oz looks like lebensraum and coming in to take it by force. Unlike most other nations, Oz can't export onto the world market one of its most precious resources...space.