Fubar512

The most the most-advanced RWR units in the series will tell you, is the aircraft type is currently tracking you, or that has locked on to you and is guiding either a beam-rider or semi-active homing missile (SAHM). If all is properly (historically) set up, it won't be able to ID some aircraft accurately, because they utilize the same radar type. For example, some MiG-21s and MiG-23s share the same radar unit, as do some early MiG-29s and Su-27s, so it will default to the earliest threat type. What the RWR will not tell you, is when an Acitive Homing Missile (or AHM) is tracking you. You will only get a very brief "tickle" when the aircraft that is launching that missile designates you as a target.

By dropping the paveways

Battlezone to me is a classic penny-arcade game from 1980. I fed way too many quarters to that game back in the day. http://my.ign.com/atari/battlezone

The Xac used by the series is not based on the overall aerodynamic center of a given flight model. It is instead based on the aerodynamic center of each surface. Xac for each surface is determined along a line that runs fore and aft at the chord of each lifting surface. Generally, for simplicity's sake, we start the 'Xac Progression" at 25% of the distance back from the leading edge along the chord line, and progress back to approximately 70%, at max value. Experiment with this, and see what happens.

Thirdwire titles do utilize multithreading. What they don't utilize is hyperthreading, nor do they make effective use of more than two cores.

From the positions of the Xac tables, for one. Other examples; "vertail" is not a lifting surface, and therefore has no Xac tables associated with it, and wings don't have downwash tables associated with them, (etc.).

Reference area applies only to the wings, as per TK. Unless I'm mistaken, you'll find this mentioned in an early thread regarding flight modeling (along with other useful tidbits), on TW's site. When I say "early", I am talking circa 2003-2005. EDIT: Damn, I just checked the TW site, they seem to have purged all the earlier threads. I may have this in my notes somewhere.

The TW reference chords listed are properly calculated. They are based off each wing as a total. The chord values for each individual wing panel are likewise correct. All are calculated the proper distance out from the CL of the AC. If you use Kreelin's Aeroconvert, it will calculate the the Chord value based off each wing. Calculating it for each wing panel, is where you run into a bit of a quandary. I used TK's "60-40" inner-outer wing ratio, which is really more of a S.W.A.G. than anything else.

Well Streak, you could always request an SCB-110A modded Midway-Class from White Boy Samurai, as he does excellent work. However, I suspect that he's busier than a sandwich maker at a Jersey Mike's during the noon-time rush

Repetition, Streak. When one's opponent is predictable in their behavior, it eventually becomes all too easy to provoke and anticipate a "canned" response. What the AI needs in this series is a larger number of variables to make it less predictable. Tuning the AI on a case by case basis as we've been doing for some time now, allows one to force the AI to use a particular aircraft to its advantage, instead of (for example) pulling past the onset of a stall in a horizontal fight or attempting vertical maneuvers in situations where it's clearly outclassed.

In the AircraftObject.DLL file

New discovery...LOLOLOLOL There you go, once again taking credit for "discovering" features that have been common knowledge among the old hands here for several years. Look at the FMs of the F-86 Sabres and MiG-15s dated back to 2010-2012, or the third-party Yak-38's FM, or any of baffmeister's FMs.

All one needs to do is to create "virtual" objects, and use the same "engine method" to illuminate an area that MiGbuster and myself did with the deck, flood, and navigation lights on carriers, and that was also used on Julhelm's Handymax tanker and container ships. One then strategically places those virtual objects on a given terrain, and you now have illumination. Conversely, one can create actual terrain objects, such as street lights, radio masts, etc, and add flood and even red anti-collision lights to the taller ones, with all of them using engine illumination.

Out at sea, on a calm day aboard a drifting boat, one can faintly hear civilian airliners flying at contrail altitude, or about 28k feet or so.

Even with realistic fuel quantities and consumption values, it's still quite easy to run out of fuel during a mission. Try flying a bombing mission from any airfield in Thailand to Hanoi in an F-105, and see how far you get, 60% scale and all.

Skyviper, Your second contender is the way to go. It appears to offer a lot of bang for the buck. As for the others, the R7 is a bit dated, you'll not get a substantial boost with more than 8 GB of RAM at present (you can always add more), and you'll probably never see any increase in performance with more than 4 physical cores in just about any title that I can see you running.

Michael, you've missed your calling as a comedian. Notice where BMW, Mercedes, and VW land on the chart below. And please don't try arguing with me, as I have been turning wrenches on cars and motor-coaches professionally on and off since the mid-1970s. The power-trains on the current crop of US-built cars are good for between 300,000 and 1,000,000 KM. They don't eat expensive ($4,800.00) fuel injection pumps every 120K km like VW diesels are prone to do. BMW and Mercedes were industry leaders when it came to reliability 20+ years ago, but that is no longer true, as modern Mercedes are known for being money pits after just a few years, and BMWs are infamous for causing their owners to have to shell out $3000 US at a dealer for the most routine of services, once they are off lease or warranty.

I saw this while surfing through the day's video on a local news site. http://video-embed.nj.com/services/player/bcpid1950981419001?bctid=4821530480001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMILBk~,Vn8u6tPOf8Us2eD8W1ez5Zw-Ss_6Anfe

Here's another video, this one taken from a drone. This is a graveyard of abandoned ships that sits in the Arthur Kill, a narrow waterway that lies between NY's Staten Island to the east, and the NJ towns of Sewaren and Perth Amboy, to the west. There are wrecks here that date back to WW I, such as NYC ferry boats that were plying the waters between Staten Island and Manhattan just prior to WW I. http://video-embed.nj.com/services/player/bcpid1950981419001?bctid=4824796305001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAPLMILBk~,Vn8u6tPOf8Us2eD8W1ez5Zw-Ss_6Anfe

That is strange, is that waterway is normally teaming with water fowl, such as egrets, herons, geese, etc. http://www.njaudubon.org/SectionIBBA/IBBASiteGuide.aspx?sk=3138

Marcelo is quite talented. I still correspond with him from time to time.

Like this? https://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

My modder friends and I would say, we would say: Ni!

Interesting....this has been hashed over several times over the years. I was using tables that were available on NASA's website for my calculations. The big issue is with Missiles like the MIM-14 and the SA-5, which in RL fly different profiles depending on the range of the target. If the target is at the short end of the missile's engagement envelope, they basically fly a direct intercept profile, like any medium-range SAM would. If the target is at the outside edge of the envelope, they both use a "loft" profile, and the final engagement involves the missile descending into it's target (or ahead of the target's flight path, as would the case with the nuclear-tipped variants of both birds). If one were to set the weapon data entries up with a loft altitude, it would more than likely affect their ability to effectively engage most targets in-game. Damned if you, Damned if you don't

Piecemeal, judging from the image, yo may want to bump up your anisotropic filtering setting up to at least 8x or so.