JediMaster

For a second I'd thought you'd lost it and were declaring yourself an S-2!

I've read through this thread twice and I STILL can't figure out what it is the argument is apparently about?

I do understand where Boeing is coming from. If you're told you'll be judged by a certain set of conditions but are actually judged by a DIFFERENT set of conditions (which is all the GAO really seems to have said--that there was inconsistency), that's not really on the up-and-up. As far as which tanker is actually the better way to go, I won't say, I leave that as an exercise for the student.

I didn't know the game featured deception jamming. Pretty much every flight sim I can think of has represented noise jamming only.

Nice pic, but not true to life. If that F-15 starts his engines, the other plane gets its wingtip right in the efflux. If it moves first, you have to move it creatively to avoid hitting the F-15!

Of course, when the world ends in 2011 we'll all realize the Mayans weren't really that great at math.

Heh, an AGM-65 on a Raptor. Using a $140m fighter to attack a target worth a few hundred grand isn't really cost effective.

Besides, that would really expose the Raptor to visually guided ground fire.

I recall that's one of the main things the USN liked about the Super Bug over the old Hornet--the bring back capacity. The old Hornet is very limited in how much it can still be carrying when it traps. Something like 4 missiles and 2 500lb bombs max, I forget the exact numbers. So if it takes off with more than that, it either has to use them or lose them before the trap, which gets expensive during lulls in combat.

The Super Bug in contrast can trap with a larger percentage of its takeoff payload, meaning more cost-effective use of weaponry.

Dos semanas, gringo!

2012 is the next Roland Emmerich movie, due out in a couple of years. Yes, it's about the end of the world. Again. Because one director can't make a film with that plot too many times.

No, that's the other end. When a MRV separates in orbit and re-enters for impact, each separate warhead takes a slightly different path. This is a test of the entire system using inert warheads (no radioactive materials or explosive to go "boom") showing the impact site in the ocean.

It's a time lapse photo so it looks like lasers or launches but it's really all of the re-entry trails superimposed together.

I don't know, we've had some allies and countrymen's hearts bleed pretty profusely...

Dornier has made some ugly planes, you can't deny that.

It looks cool, although I think any engine designer would tsk tsk the placement of the engine inlets. At any sort of AoA you're going to get dirty airflow into the engines that will result in a stall.

Another Q--with wings and twin tails like that, are the stabs necessary? You could probably cant them out a little further and V-tail it ala F-23 I would guess.

Congrats!

Celebrating 10 yrs in a couple of months myself, and while it hasn't all been smooth sailing it's been mostly smooth sailing because we dated for 3 years first and got all the surprises out of the way in year 1.

You need a couple of things. First, you have to set terrain to "perfect", that's a must.

Second, you need an nvidia chip-powered video card. Anything else won't do it because Oleg's team only got the support they needed from nvidia. Therefore, the coding only takes advantage of their cards.

Third, you need to go into the conf.ini file and find the line water=x. I think water=4 is the best water you can get.

I don't know about either coming out this year, although I'd believe ArmA 2 before OFP2 only because ArmA 2 is building upon ArmA while OFP2 is all-new.

Anyway, an AMD 64 3800 is definitely falling behind the times, although ArmA is also needing of a good GPU.

The difference is in the past even those with fast machines would have trouble due to coding inefficeincies. Those have been largely eliminated now, so if you have a machine with power you can crank up the detail and get good performance. If you don't, you'll still have to drop details.

This is that asymptotic curve that people always talk about with simulation. You can get 50% there dirt cheap. You can get 75% there for reasonable cost. You can get 90% there for high cost, and to get the last 10% will cost you an astronomical amount.

If this is the 90%, I'll stick with my rfactor at 75%.

What is that red thing with black cone to the very right, under U2's wing? Some kind of drone? Or plane part?

It's a Ryan Firebee.

Wait, I thought that B-2 was brought up to service status after the test program ended? Or is that not the one I'm thinking of?

I've heard rumors of a Blake's 7 remake/sequel. Not sure how reliable they are.

I'm still shocked, never saw it coming.

Heh, looks just like it looks in Il-2 Pac Fighters.

That was in 2001: A Space Odyssey, right?

Yup, a famous scene. Great flick, even if it doesn't conform to modern ideas of what an SF film should be (namely SF now = SF action, very few SF only like Day the Earth Stood Still or 2001 made now).

I think Gattaca was the last great "pure SF" film I remember. AI tried to go there, but I just didn't get the same feeling from it. Oh, Bicentennial Man, too.

What you need is called "nose wheel steering" and by default it is turned off. There's a light right to the left of the HUD, I think, that says "NWS". If it's dark, only your rudder moves with the pedals which mean taxiing under 100kts or so it's useless.

I don't remember what the default key for it is since I have it mapped to my HOTAS, but look in the control assignment screen and you should see it there.

The thing to remember is you want NWS off during take off itself because at 150kts tapping the rudders could cause some unwanted consequences. It's meant for taxi speeds only.