JediMaster

I just watched Not the Messiah this week, the one-night-only performance at Royal Albert Hall of a semi-operatic adaptation of Life of Brian. Eric Idle was joined by brief apperances by Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin, Carol Cleveland, and Neil Innes. Only John Cleese was absent, which made me wonder about his current health.

It's all about the AB! Actually, in Falcon altitude matters as well. I climb up nice and high to get the fuel burn as low as I can when I'm in friendly territory.

Sounds like the guy is trying for a Christian Bale-as-Batman vibe there.

Anyway, 2027 is a bit close in time for this stuff, but the game could still be good. This is just a cinematic, no gameplay, who knows what it will turn out like?

I don't know how Steve Jobs would feel about weaponizing the iPod. However, it would be useless because unless you held it just right the weapon's range would drop to almost nothing.

Yes, I'm eagerly awaiting A-10C!

Personally I don't know what the point is of setting it higher other than perhaps it might work like a form of FSAA. By setting the 3D res lower than your actual res you'll get better peformance without downscaling your actual resolution (which most LCDs don't like and get blurry).

Anyway, I have mine matched because it seems setting it higher lowers performance for no noticeable benefit.

Personally I think something like a plane not properly disintegrating on impact with the ground a distant second to things like lackluster SP campaigns. I don't believe in MP-only flight sims (a few FPS games like that are good for me) and I think any flight sim should be a full experience even if you never go online.

That said, I enjoy MP in flight sims and the ones that are SP-only are also missing something.

Are people actually arguing that this can't happen? All that needed to be solved was the power problem...generating a powerful enough laser to cause combat-effective damage. The ABL 747 has knocked down a test missile already at a very large range thanks to the powerful laser burning through the tank skin. It's only hard to track an object that you're very close to, but if you're out a few miles they can't outmaneuver a camera and therefore the laser. All you need is a powerful solid-state laser that can fit in a fighter which is still under development. The F-35's bay for the B model lift fan and available shaft for power from the engine has made it very attractive for that eventuality.

No pilot will feel the heat of the laser unless it's on their cockpit. After all, the engines get a LOT hotter in full AB but they don't feel that! All you need to do is hit the wing of a plane where the fuel is. You start a fire and it's over. It's not some laser point the size of a pen point that has to sit on one spot for 10 seconds, the beam is wider than that and only has to stay in the general vicinity. Look at the video of the drone. First a fuel leak is started, which isn't in of itself fatal, until the beam's continued dwelling on that area ignites the fuel. That's the end of the drone. Regardless of whether a pilot can manage to put out the fire he's combat ineffective at that point, RTB.

Sure there are laser warning devices like on the Ka-50, but those are meant to detect a targeting laser's scatter, which you may notice function just fine at 30k+ ft designating LGB targets and even moving vehicles. No radar needed, computerized optics can track these objects. The cynical can say the pilot could roll the plane to dissipate the heat, but how long can they keep it up? Aileron rolls ad nauseum aren't going to get you away from AAA, SAMs, or missiles. A laser used together with another weapon, say aiming it at the wing while the pilot is pulling hard g's to break a missile lock, will be a deadly combination.

Well, do remember no one has ever done it. It's only been dropped by bombers in tests and in WWII, I don't think a single tactical bomber or fighter has ever dropped a live nuke in a test, just shapes.

I doubt those numbers for the F-17's range. There's no way it would've been better than the F/A-18.

Actually, Northrop did offer the original F-17 as the F-18L (for land, since it wasn't carrier capable) in the late 70s, but I think everyone looking in that size class bought F-16s instead. Like the F-20, it wasn't good enough to match the reputation of the Electric Jet. Had Congress been more restrictive on who could get F-16s (like Taiwan almost didn't), then I think the F-20 and F-18L might've had a shot.

Besides, in real conflicts things are rarely "balanced". One side usually is stronger in any given engagement. The fact that you've called for help indicates that the enemy is stronger at that time. When the relief comes in, it swings back the other way. It's of course dependent on them getting to you before you get shot down of course, as if they only avenge your death it's little comfort!

RH missile, yes. Of course, that's based purely on lock-on, so if it's a missile like an AMRAAM that doesn't lock on until later in flight, THAT'S when you get the lock-on warning, not at launch. IR missiles of course you don't get squat.

However, I like the auto-jam feature F4 has, where I can set it so it stays off but when a missile launch is detected it turns on and auto pops chaff.

I thought he was going to say "I did not fly the plane" as that would've most CERTAINLY prevented a major air disaster.

The only thing is, like mentioned, you need to dwell on target for it to damage. A fleeting shot will peel the paint or scorch the skin, but you'll need a few seconds for a real damaging shot. Now with a turret with a lock-on feature, that's not an issue, but in a dogfight snapshots won't cut it while with bullets a lucky hit will do just as much damage as one carefully placed.

They have cameras able to track almost anything now, as long as the gimbal motors can keep the target in the FOV.

"Too close for guns, I'm switching to lasers!"

Yup, LOL! "What mathematical equation did you solve...??!?!"

Some people won't risk flying without the ECM, though.

Oh, I missed the part in the article where it was mentioned they're frickin-shark-head-mounted...

Yup, and that was one of the things that led to the 2 AvP films...I wish the 2nd had never happened. If I ever get a time machine...

I showed this to an SF guy here and he couldn't stop laughing!

Remember that TK never claimed to strive for realism, and therefore hard != realistic, it's just harder! As mentioned, instead of "easy", "normal", and "hard", you could rename the settings as "blue advantage", "equal", and "red advantage". I don't know why even when stupid your wingmen get more powerful planes than you do, perhaps TK had too many complaints about how easy the AI were to shoot down? I had no trouble with that, as long as they put up a fight, but I guess some people wanted more difficulty so all AI must now get easy FM perhaps. Anyone tried flying on easy FM to see if your plane flies like the AI?

Now every pilot's survival pack will include a compact mirror, whether female or not.

Basically, it's a Predator hunting gang members in LA during a fictional future (which is now the past anyway!) when they've mostly overrun parts of the city with their turf wars. Gary Busey is Mr Govt Man that shows up (with Adam Baldwin in a small role as one of his men) trying to take it captive to learn about the technology while Danny just wants it dead or gone since he's like 15 seconds away from retirement or whatever. Or is that a different film? Anyway, it pretty much follows the pattern of the first film with govt guys and cops as well as gang bangers being offed in various nasty ways around the city until at the end Danny kills him, as expected, but the wrist device is damaged so no self-destruct to take out half the city. Then he finds its ship where a whole group of other Predators shows up, gives him an old pistol from the 1700s or something to show they've been visiting earth for a long time, then they leave taking the corpse with them.

That's a twin-engined model, my guess is you saw the single-engined version.

Unless you were little only like 5 years ago, that is!

Wow, big turnout.

Uh, sorry, but the range can't be worse than the Hornets they have now!

Besides, doesn't Canada still have some 707 tankers, or did they get retired?