zmatt

Just use the range and red range terrains here at CA. They don't have hostile aircraft on them, and few sams. They are good for joy rides and I use them for flight testing when I don't want to be bugged by bandits.

I could see aircraft packs, but not single aircraft. As far as detail would go, they would need to compete with 3rd party mods. ie: high res skins, original pits, extra functioning features like fuel probes etc.

Don't forget about Cocas. He is the guy to go to for the 109. he has E's already done, and he is working on the C and D now. The F and G are also in the pipeline. He has a stickied thread in the modding forum.

I'm not rivet counter, so it doesn't matter to me. Close is close enough heh.

So a 2 second .ini edit and maybe a different skin and we are good to.

The Z is cool and all, but an up to date offering of real 109s is more important. Keep of the great work man. You are a 109 god!

I agree. I don't remember hearing of external stores before the E, and the first ones were rigged at that.

Cool, they seem really enthusiastic about it. Where do you actually get the FMs though? I checked the downloads and they only have CFS3 stuff up there. The Aero program sounds cool too. Now anyone will be able to get a basic FM going for their WIP.

What is AVhistory? This is the first time I have heard of it. Whatever it is it sounds like great news to all the propheads including yours truly.

Both are great ideas. There have been many times where I was in it deep and i asked for help only to have redcrown tell me that all assets were committed. Bitmaps are huge too and a lot of progress in raster image technology has been made since the format was introduced. Sure it allows you to make skins in mspaint, but a better format would probably help our hard drives and FPS a lot.

Supposed to be some special particle that if found means that a bunch of theories are right and if not found means that a bunch of theories are BS. That's what I took from it at least.

The QAAM does the same thing in the SU-27 for me. I don't know why. better yet, what is a QAAM anyways?

I've been shot down by and have shot down friendlies with AIM-9s all the time. I think the IFF system is broken to some extent. As for the IRIS-T you can't shoot at things 25km away and expect to hit much of anything. The only heat seekers that have that range are as AIM-132 and the heat seeker versions of some of the larger Russian missiles.

You know I just realized that this is exactly why neutron bombs were invented. A neutron bomb is basically a standard Nuclear weapon that allows the radiation to escape instead of using it to make a larger explosion. Most of the killing power in a neutron bomb is through neutron radiation and not blast power. As you said most tanks would be able to survive the blast and keep moving, and the NBC gear would save the crews. A neutron bomb would kill the crews and actually leave most of the tanks intact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

I'm not saying you can't make it in large amounts. I'm just saying the LHC won't and can't. That's not its purpose. And just like anything else if you want to mass produce it you will need factories and lots of them. It is far more difficult to make enough antimatter for a bomb than it is to make weapons grade uranium, but if any world power put enough time and energy into it they could probably make enough in a few years. Anti-matter has a lot in common with nuclear energy in that, it can be a great energy source, but it can also be a weapon of unbelievable destruction. Could you imagine what an antimatter bomb the size of little boy could do?

Heh forget the hype. The main proponent behind the black hole thing is a high school science teacher. I think the guys in France know what they are doing. And if they do make a black hole we will be dead before we know it so it doesn't matter. It would be funny if they didn't find the Higgs Boson. One of my buddies is a physics student and the way he articulated it is, if they don't find it, then most everything in modern quantum physics could be wrong, and they have to re-evaluate all of it. Now that woudl be funny. Because honestly, the physics guys are some of the more arrogant guys around. I can't think of any better way to bring them down to earth than by showing that the thing they spent theri lives studying is all wrong. Of course the likely hood of that is slim. And the actualy anti-matter production will be measured in atoms not grams. Anyone see angels and demons? They way over stated the ability to produce anti-matter.

^QFT! I don't think nuclear disarmament is possible. Once the genie is out it ain't coming back in. The only thing that I think will render nuclear weapons undesirable is the development of something more powerful and cheaper or cleaner. I'd imagine anti matter warheads wouldn't be too far off now that the LHC is up. It doesn't take much to wipe out a place the size of NYC. I think air burst nukes clear up in a matter of days or weeks. It's when you set them off in water or underground is where there can be a problem. Then it can get into the ecosystem. Quoting the wiki article on operation crossroads They will have intense radiation during the explosion and anyone in the area will either die instantly of it, die the next few days or will have serious health complications afterwords, but anyone who shows up afterwords is fine. They have a mazda car plant there and I haven't heard of anyone getting cancer from driving an RX-8.

That is pretty sweet. It is much improved over the current system.

You could make a bomb that isn't droppable or jettisonable.

It all makes sense in logic. Nothing is random in the universe. If it doesn't make logical sense then your logic is wrong. Math in and of itself is a logical system. If something works out mathematically then it is logical by definition. Just because something doesn't appear to make sense at the first glance does not mean that it is without logic. Then again, the above statement has gotten many engineers in trouble when they try to apply logic to non logical things. How often have engineers thought they had figured out something as a system and thought they could do better, only to find out it had no quantifiable or logical basis? Also who is to say that all of our math is right anyways? It is only measurable to a certain extent. After that you are using math to prove math. The further you go the further you get from definite numbers to ones that are simply extrapolated. Sure aerodynamics are well understood. if all else fails we can go and fly and compare what really happens to what we think will happen. But when you get into quantum mechanics you approach things that we have no easily measurable analog to. Call me nuts, but measuring the distance of objects by how red it is and bouncing neutrons off of things seems very iffy ways to measure stuff. Not to say that I know any better way to do it. Or that we are wrong. But I think that the assumption it is right is inherently wrong. You can;t be sure unless you do it. And I think it will be quite some time until we break the speed of light, if it even is possible of course. Also, Einstein first thought of relativity riding a bus and thinking of the logic problem of going the speed of light. So deduction does have an important place in science.

Awesome man, it looks great!

One that annoys me is when you are chasing an AI plane and it slows down and begins to porpoise up and down.

Well I got the gun to work. Thanks BattlerBritain!

It's a saying we have. It looks fine mate.

Ah yeah sorry, I guess I'm taking things too seriously today. >.<