Gunrunner

If it only was in some games... just think of the DVDs you can't legally read on Linux unless you broke your contractual agreement with the publisher, think of the protected CDs that no longer conform to the CD specifications and won't be played on most computers, play with degraded quality on most others and will just not work on old legacy CD players and car radios... Think of the eBooks so ridden with restrictions you can't have them on your home and mobile computer, you can't print them and in some extreme cases, can't search them. Think of the region encoded DVDs, just so you can't legally play a legally bought legit copy of a movie for half the price abroad once you get back home, just because publishers want to decide which country can support the most margin, and wish to enforce it even in your living room. Piracy never was the real reason behind those anti-consumer protections, piracy is only the excuse the content publishers have found to make money at the expense of both the consumers and the content creators, adapting to the new environment not by giving creators and consumers what they want (which would virtually eliminate the need for publishers and their fat margins, look at TK's business model), but by slowly but surely switching from a possession economy to a licence economy, where you don't own the music you paid for and can use it, resell it, transfer it as you see fit for your own purpose, but instead the publisher decides what you can do with the music, how you should listen to it, how long you are allowed to use it, etc... There has been precedent of this new economy where the servers authorizing the licences failed, or the services closed, leaving consumers unable to use the products for which they paid for (the DVD-HD scheme was such a catastrophe, it was basically DVD with WMV-HD films, requiring the green light from a server to play the content, the trouble was 1) you could only play your DVD on a computer 2) running a very recent Windows OS as the codecs won't install 3) with an internet connection; the trouble was for some users of the scheme, the servers were never up, or closed quickly, leaving users who paid good money for the movies as a premium product with a new shiny beer coaster; or think of those who bought movies through the online Google scheme, only to be told month later that the service closed, so they lost their movies but were instead given credits to be used on things completely different, and offering no way to get the movies back). The trouble is the legislators simply do not understand the technologies and stakes of this matter, following their limited understanding of the question and who represents the most funding and votes. The publishers either do not understand the technology enough and fall into the anti-piracy frenzy (making some protection software publishers rich), or understand way too well and scared by having to completely rethink their activity, do all that is in their power to stop the changes in economy. The consumers now, are mostly oblivious; for the vast majority, there is no trouble, if something doesn't quite work, they just buy another format, another player, and mostly never think of the underlying issues; they never go beyond the initial frustration and how things used to be simpler. The geeks now, are informed enough, but unfortunately, most are quite radical and way too involved, so much in fact that most sound like complete unreasonnable fanatics (or lunatics for some), and some really are, not helping one bit to change the situation for the best, their caricatural behavior serving as an argument for over-protection of publishers. Quite frankly, this is a pity, as what started to be laws and rules to protect the interests of creators against publishers now serves to protect publishers against creators and consumers, and that is very bad indeed, for everyone. OK, rant off. Sparko, don't worry, I myself am very used to buying crippled games/CDs/DVDs and then simply using a less legitimate version simply to avoid the hassles (or, as in your case, simply to get it working at all) of my legally bought one, that may be legally dubious, but morally neutral. Gwar, morally AND legally speaking, while taking, in this specific case, is alright, giving is, alas, not (since SH3 can't be considered abandonware by any stretch of the term, and even then abandonware still is, in most instances, a grey area).

Sparko> It's just we have nothing better to do and positively love seriously arguing about something so trivial (especially since changing a name is one of the easiest change there is). Dels> Rapier has a Vought ring to it, somewhat not fitting as most Vought crafts were Navy crafts and the Rapier name might evoke the cursed Cutlass, another (Vought) plane named after a blade type.

Razor fits, that's why it would probably be an unofficial nickname, just like Warthog is better known than Thunderbolt II. But here we are talking about official designation, most of which ARE lame. And anyway, once it proves itself in combat, the damn thing would be known as Straight Razor... Whatever is chosen, once out, I will fly it as Warhawk II over the Taiwan Straight. ;)

Silverbolt, What-If are even more fun it they take verisimilitude into account, otherwise they are just fantasy, so why bother to model it at all, we could just use a box and everyone would just pretend it's a high-resolution model. ^^ Since I was not under the impression the F-29 was part of a Ace Combat/Macross/Whatever Is Fashionable, I assumed it strived for verisimilitude (the quality of ressembling thruth). Anyway, it was just a motivated and argumented opinion, whatever happens, once out, you can still rename and mod the damn thing how you please. You could even paint it pink and have unicorns on the wings if that strikes your fancy, which, strangely, I doubt. Talos, unfortunately, no, this is no precedent, let me explain why : In the case of the Tiger, you have the F-5E Tiger II, named in the 70's. Then you have the european recon/patrol/escort/attack helo, originally named Tigre/Gerfaut/whatever in France and PAH-2 (then a host of other designations as focus shifted and intended missions evolved) in Germany (I'm not aware of Tiger being an official name for the machine in German service, as it would be unusual for the Germans, the Tigre's predecessor was simply known as PAH-1). Notice that in this case, the US designation predates the European one (europeans never gave a damn about what the rest of the world calls their hardware, our names are often purely national and in our own language, we never really made efforts to "translate" Viggen, Gripen, Rafale, Mirage... for export purposes). Now, in the Lynx case, we have the Westland helicopter named at the beginning of the 70's, before the naming of the F-29, thus, the US, having a naming policy avoiding confusion not only nationaly but internationally, would certainly not use the name. Different situations, different outcomes.

Ok, let's be rationnal for one minute : We have to consider DoD's naming style, USAF naming tradition and current fancy as well as Northrop/Grumman heritage. The Northtrop/Grumman part points toward a cat name, because it is mostly a Grumman plane AND a F-5 derivative, itself named, in its E variant, after a Grumman plane named after a big cat. - Razor, sounds "cool", 70's/80's "cool" that is, and definitely not a name in the tradition of either the manufacturer or the USAF. - Lynx, in keeping with Grumman's tradition, but already taken by a helo from an allied country, still in service. - Panther II, follows Grumman's heritage, yet fails to capture the imagination. - Puma, see above, plus the trend seems to be paying homage to legendary planes. - Cobra II, even though the YF-17 was named Cobra, the name didn't stick because of the helo, also, since the original Cobra was assigned to a prototype and thus was never officially assigned, it would still be Cobra (unless in your distopian setting the F-17 was produced, in which case the Cobra II wouldn't be used either, as the F-17 would still be in service when the question of naming the F-17 occurs), not Cobra II, which reinforce the rejection of the name to avoid confusion with the AH-1. - Warhawk II, a Curtiss-Wright name, whose heritage is "lost", if I really wanted to defend it by being ridiculous, I'd suggest using the link with the Flying Tigers to come back to the big cat theme, plus the homage. - Kittyhawk II, only as an homage, with no other relation, plus it's not a fancy enough name for the period. - Raven II, well, the first Raven performed a completely different duty and was retired not so long ago, so it is dubious the name would be chosen, also, seeing a Grumman bird taking the name of a plane whose role after retirement was taken over by another Grumman plane seems, strange, also, in your distopian timeline, the F-29 would enter service while the EF-111 is still in service, so the Raven name wouldn't be reused anyway. So, Raven II, Cobra II and Lynx would certainly not be used; Razor seems improbable; Warhawk II, Kittyhawk II are in keeping with celebrating WWII planes; Panther II and Puma are in keeping with Grumman's heritage but seem somewhat... tame. Oh, and did I say that "Razor" sounds lame, like something that would sound cool only after watching "Top Gun" again and again for a week. Anyway, just my very biased 2 cents...

Unfortunately the latest 7200rpm drives from Seagate, Western Digital and Samsung are less expensive, offer more space, consume less, heat up less and make way less noise. Except in some very precise uses, they also offer better performances (even though the new 300GB version should partially close the performance gap). So, unless you know what you are doing and that you will benefit from it, the Raptor series are just shiny, noisy, hungry gadgets bringing no real benefit besides bragging rights. BTW, I owned pairs of 74GB and 150GB Raptors, at first supposedly to improve system performances and due to the disappointing comparison with any modern 7200rpm drive in real use situation, used them to house databases, where they really shined as a low cost alternative to SCSI drives.

As a matter of fact, depending on the mother, it's either a Liger (Lion male, tiger female) or a Tig®on (Tiger male, lion female). Ligers are generally larger and way more impressive than Tigrons. Anyway, I voted Warhawk II, for nostalgia reasons and because the P-40 (and what it stands for) is well worth an homage.

Well, traditionnally Navy dual seaters have had very differentiated pits with a pilot and a radar/weapons/system/whathever officer, while Air Force aircrafts had more similar pits, both crew being able to fly the plane and being qualified pilots. Since either the NATF or the AF/X were Navy planes I would say something along the Superbug lines would be more logical (if you ignore the A-12 exception). Also, since the A-12, the doctrine evolved toward a more network centric task repartition, so you could see the AFX/NATF as a super-dual-seat-superbug. Now, from a gameplay point of view and given SFP engine limitations, a pit with all functionnalities is probably more interesting though. Well, that's my 2 cents, I can't remember reading anything concerning the pits.

From what I remember that's not exactly the story. In the 80's the USN was pushing a few programs to modernize the fleet, namely the next generation strike aircraft that was to be the ill-fated A-12, the interim solution that was the A-6F (a reengined, rewinged, renforced A-6) and the upgraded F-14D. Unfortunately funding, development troubles and political pressure forced the USN to drop the A-6F, then the A-12, leaving them with no heavy strike airframe. That's when they started the AX program (not to be confused with the USAF AX which gave birth to the A-10) to procure an advanced strike aircraft (mostly a reboot of the A-12 procurement process). But in the meantime they still needed an interim strike aircraft to replace the aging A-6, the two main proposal were transforming the F-14D to a more multirole aircraft (with plans to produce new built F-14D AND converting the whole Tomcat fleet to the D standard), or an evolution of the Hornet (what would become the SuperBug). For various reasons, but mostly budget ones, the procurement of new F-14D was limited (about 40) and only a handful of of upgrades were performed, making the Super Hornet program a vital and crucial one for the USN if they wished to keep some operationnal capability. At approximately the same time, the ATF program for the USAF was progressing and a NATF variant was studied for the USN, as a long term replacement for the aging Tomcats, but due to budgetary constraints and afraid of losing yet another program, the Navy cancelled the NATF program, favoring the SuperBug and thus chosing strike capacities over air superiority. The AF/X program was born from those cancellations, as the Navy was now with a handful of interim air superiority oriented fighters (F-14D), a handful of aging heavy strike aircrafts (A-6), quite a lot of light strike aircrafts not suited to modern constraints (F/A-18A/C), an in-development interim heavy strike aricraft (F/A-18E) and no long term solution in development for either strike or air superiority. The AF/X was thus started, to procure a modern heavy strike aircraft with good air capabilities. As you know, the AF/X was cancelled (which must have been a dreadful time, imagining the future of the USN with an interim design being the only modern asset). Yet, it was not completely dead, as the need for a long term solution for the USN was still present, and the AF/X specification served as the basis for the Navy part of the JSF requirement. BTW, if they had chosen the AF/X over the F/A-18E, the Navy would have been without a heavy strike aircraft and possible Tomcat replacement before at least the 2020's, which was clearly unacceptable in a context where budgets were shrinking and it was safer to bet on a well underway program than one that could be cancelled, go over-budget, thus leaving the USN with no plane at all. PS : A quick look at Greg Goebel's site partly confirms my memories, yeah !

Wonderful, I never saw the 3rd picture before. IIRC, on the AF/X it was supposed to house a FLIR/Laser designator/tracker combination, but without sources to confirm it right now (even though that seems logical).

By the Lord's Holy Loincloth, you have me grinning like an imbecile. Actually I think what you have here is an AF/X proposal (Lockheed's one if I'm not mistaken), not a NATF one. But that was a good choice as it looks way better than the NATF proposals I know (closer to the F-22, single seaters and somewhat more angulous in design), even though the target performances of the AF/X program were lower than the NATF (the AF/X was more the search for a heavier Hornet complement (a "stealthy" self escorting mud mover, the Super Bug somewhat replacing it) while the NATF was a navalised F-22, primarily destined to air superiority. Strangely enough there seems to be very little information on the AF/X requirement lying around on the net. IIRC, the AF/X requirement was started to find a replacement for the cancellation of both the NATF program and the A-12. Judging by the lines you probably worked from the artist's impression and cutouts once published in Air & Cosmos (I can't remember if they were published elsewhere, any mention of these drawings I found always point back to A&C). Brilliant anyway, wish I was that good when it comes to modelling -_-

May you please make your request clearer ? Are you in search for a specific trainer aircraft ? Have you checked it's not already available in the downloads section ? Or are you asking for a trainer/cheat program ? That would be strange as WoE, being a flight simulator doesn't have or need one, you just have to lower difficulty and/or learn to fly. Or maybe are you asking for a tutorial, in that case, narrowing down what you are trying to learn will probably yield better results.

Simple, while trying to log something, the database answered it was too busy and couldn't open a connection as requested, because too many were already opened. What is strange though is that the SQL INSERT statement is empty, basically logging nothing, meaning either the code performs superfluous operations or there is a logic bug somewhere. Concerning the connections trouble, that might mean that either the code is ill-optimised, opening more connections than needed and failing to release them soon or fast enough; that the server is ill-configured, allowing too little connections to be opened for the traffic and code involved; or simply that the server is showing its limits and the mean time of treating connections means every requests takes longer than they should keeping connections alive far too long. Don't worry if the answer sounded more cryptic than what prompted the question.

Why would you have to pay for reinstalling a game you already paid for ? Just make a copy of you installation somewhere in case the patch screws things up, install the patch, test it, correct by comparing with the saved copy if necessary, or should things really go awry, replace the patched copy with the unpatched one, you don't even need to uninstall/reinstall, TK's patches usually only deal with files and never with registry entries. BTW, your copy would be fully functionnal, you can duplicate your games without reinstalling them (and reinstalling them on numerous computers (as long as they are yours that is, and I'd recommend buying copies for private LAN, if only to support TK/TW) and places on your computer from the downloaded installer is in accordance with your original licence AFAIK). Even if you needed to reinstall, you could just reuse the installer you originally downloaded, or should you lose it, I guess you can download it again or just nicely ask TK for a new copy, with your original order details it wouldn't be a problem I guess.

You're welcome, keep in mind it is an oversimplification of the story, from memory so may not be always exact, but it gives the "feel" of French aeronautic programs of the days. It ignores the relationship between the Jaguar, Mirage G4's and the Tornado (initially there was a joint requirement, quickly giving two distinct programs, but the variable geometry technology (considered by most at the time as the most efficient and elegant available, and considered for the F-14 IIRC) of the Mirage G finally ended up in the Tornado, and the Jaguar was an interim solution to the failure of the initial program) as well as other earlier experiments like the Balzac and Mirage III-V, it also completely ignores the first Dassault answer to the early 70's requirement, as I can't remember if it ever went further than a proposal, AFAIR it was a Mirage G8 with a Mirage F2 wing.

A little background seems needed here... Since the end of WW2 France always had great aeronautic ambitions and often launched programs for heavy and complex planes but due to cost and political incompetence ended up buying smaller, simpler and more affordable planes. Let's forget the Mirage III/5 generation and skip to the next, which is of interest here. In the early 60's France wanted a new multirole aircraft to replace the Mirage III, offering better range, better load-out and better take-off and landing distances. Dassault answered with, basically, a tandem Mirage III airframe with a high swept wing and a better engine (an American one IIRC), designated Mirage III F2, the prototype proved efficient, but France had a change of heart and now wanted a pure interceptor instead of a multirole interceptor/penetrator (AFAIR because at that moment we were getting out of OTAN and were considering ourselves on our own for our air defence), so Dassault proposed an evolution of the prototype, the Mirage III F3, basically a single seat Mirage III F2, with a smaller wing and a more powerful engine, however it was soon realised that the program was too costly and thus, has many French programs before and after, it was dropped. Fortunately for France's defence, Dassault knew his client and the political quagmire surrounding defence programs, so they started working on a cheaper alternative even before officials thought of terminating the program, it was a scaled-down Mirage III F3, with a French engine taken from the Mirage IV to lower development costs, and was branded Mirage F1, it was soon adopted as France's next interceptor. At the same time, as the Mirage III F2 program, Dassault was tasked with studying variable geometry and see if that could produce something useful. That gave us the Mirage G in the mid/late 60's, which was basically a single-seat Mirage III F2 with a variable geometry wing of Dassault's design. The Mirage G proved interesting enough (more than the Mirage III F2) to spawn requests for something more than just a proof of concept and the Air Force soon emits a demand for a penetrator/recon/nuclear aircraft based on the Mirage G, that was the Mirage G4, a dual seat, twin engine Mirage G, unfortunately due to the costs and the little number of planes planed, the program was quickly scrapped. Never ones to let a sweet idea escape, the Air Force, a little helped by Dassault, thought of changing the objective and asking for a heavy interceptor instead, lowering some costs as most of the development was already paid for, the result was the Mirage G8, in fact the Mirage G4 prototypes modified to be single-seaters, as you may have guessed (and known), that also was scrapped... That leads us to the early 70's, right after the end of both the F2/F3/G4/G8 programs was pronounced and France had chosen the Mirage F1 as its next generation fighter. Thus came the time to think of the next generation, but this time the most pressing need was air defence, so the focus was on obtaining a heavy fighter for air superiority but still capable to replace other attack types. Dassault answered not with a single design, but with two, the Mirage 4000, corresponding to the wish of the Air Force, and the Mirage 2000 (initially the study was privately funded) as a cheaper alternative. As usual the choice went for the cheaper alternative, but Dassault was allowed to pursue the study on the Mirage 4000 on its private funds. At some point Saudi Arabia was interested in the Mirage 4000 and helped keep the program, now named Super Mirage 4000, alive. And then came the whole fiasco around the next generation, but that is another story, void of interesting oddities (but yes, the Mirage 4000 program was a source of data and inspiration for the Rafale).

Given the budget and a personal focus on stability and service rather than performance and extra functionalities, I would select a P35 based MB, probably an Intel DP35DP or an Asus P5K (depending on the service quality Asus offers in the US). For SLI you would have to turn to a nVidia nForce 650i SLI based card, that would be an Asus P5N-E SLI or a Gigabyte GA-N650SLI-DS4L. Unless you really need SLI, I wouldn't advise an nForce based card as they tend to perform well but tend to be more unstable. Nowadays you are probably safer, cheaper and better with a high-end GPU than 2 mid-range GPU in SLI (that would depend on the games of course).

It all started by a group of French tourists being mugged and killed by local no-gooders, the threat considered is more tribe organized crime than terrorism; The incident, added to various global and local terrorism concerns (which are not the main concern here), just convinced French authorities and the Rally organization that the security in Mauritania couldn't be guaranteed. This usually never posed a problem as the answer was usually to change the program by choosing another country, unfortunately this year there wasn't enough time for such contingencies plans, the greatest part of the rally scheduled to take place in Mauritania. Also, the Dakar has lost a lot of support through the years and gathered little interest in Europe in the previous editions (compared to what it once was), it also has been widely criticized on humanitarian, sportive and ecological ground. This blow should not be a huge problem for the finances of the Dakar organization thanks to insurance, but some private participants won't have the same chance; added to the general decline of that particular rally and the falling financial support, it might make the next ones hard to organize.

Being a great fan of anti-runway missions I was quite disappointed of not being able to use Durandals. Since Durandals are modeled as rockets, they can't be used without some editing. The basic editing would be changing pylons in the plane data.ini to add the RCKT WeaponType, but that would mean mounting only one Durandal per pylon. That would be better but wouldn't represent the way they were used in Israelian, French or USAF service. Fortunately we could do some simple modifications to emulate the mounting used. Since we are dealing with rockets we can simply add specialised rocket pods using the TER and MER LODs. Below are the MER and TER adapted to carry 2, 3, 4 and 6 Durandal, the exemple deals only with the French Durandal, adapting them for the BLU-107/B is minimal. [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx2 FullName=Matra Durandal (x2) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=2 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx3 FullName=Matra Durandal (x3) ModelName=ter Mass=43.090000 Diameter=0.230000 Length=1.980000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=3 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket02Position=-0.230000,0.000000,-0.110000 Rocket03Position=0.000000,0.000000,-0.355000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx4 FullName=Matra Durandal (x4) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=4 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 [WeaponDataxxxx] TypeName=Durandalx6 FullName=Matra Durandal (x6) ModelName=mer Mass=99.790001 Diameter=0.260000 Length=3.590000 AttachmentType=FRANCE,CHINA,BRAZIL,W_GERMANY NationName=FRANCE StartYear=1980 EndYear=2000 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=40 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1980 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=2 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketTypeName=Durandal NumRockets=6 ROF=0.000000 FireEffectName= FireEffectTime=0.000000 FrontCoverNodeName= RearCoverNodeName= ShowRockets=TRUE Rocket01Position=0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket02Position=0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket03Position=-0.230000,1.240000,-0.090000 Rocket04Position=-0.230000,-1.260000,-0.090000 Rocket05Position=0.000000,1.240000,-0.330000 Rocket06Position=0.000000,-1.260000,-0.330000 The positions are not perfect, especially on the TER, but they are close enough for now. The x2 and x4 adapters are stand-in, as in reality specifics adapters were available, IIRC a low-drag quad used in France and a duo one used on German Phantoms and during the USAF evalutations. Also, the dates in the Weapons Pack are incorrect, the Durandal entered service in the French Air Force in 1977, and entered service in the USAF around 89/90. Of course, once this is done, you still have to edit your planes data.ini to add the capability to use rocket pods (RP) on pylons that should be able to use Durandals.

Wolf65> Absolutely, but Austria doesn't have the same geographic, financial and military safeguards as Switzerland and would have had to take an active part in defending their territory, and since the WP would have been the ones menacing their frontiers and they lack the forces to withstand the push for very long, they would either have had to surrender fast or "accept" NATO's support. From a gamer's point of view, the last option is the most interesting, besides, you could try and design a friendly campaign with Austrian units whose purpose is purely defensive over Austria. ShadowRain X Zero> Sorry, the whole WoC scenario doesn't make much sense, even though Larry Bond collaborated (probably took the money to finance something really worth his talent). Gocad> You're right, my bad -_- Don't know where that came from... an unconscious way to solve the problem of not having Upper Heyford or Lakenheath on the map.

It all depends on the history behind the conflict. You have to answer a few questions : - What started the conflict ? - Had anyone time to prepare for the conflict or was the eruption of the war a surprise for nearly everyone ? - When does your campaign starts, at the very start of the conflict or a few weeks later once everyone had time to organize, resupply, take positions in the Atlantic and suffered tremendous attrition ? - Do other nations join in on the fun, opening other theatres and stretching US forces thin, or can the US concentrate on defending Europe ? Then you can start thinking about which nations still have a capacity to fight, the level of supplies, the losses, the troops sent into the Central European theatre, etc.. Keep in mind that in 1989 it was estimated that Europe could fight 3 weeks of a WW3-type conflict without resupply, but after that we were all out of ammo and planes, the main effort of the US and Western navies would be to secure the Northern Atlantic, meaning you would see very little USN planes in Central Europe (they would be out in Iceland and the Northern Atlantic), very few USMC presence (they would be defending Norway, and unless Norway fell, would not be seen much in Central Europe (most Harriers you'd see in CE would be British ones)), as well you wouldn't see some British types over CE as they would be used to patrol the GIUK gap. Some basic source material to get numbers, types and the overall feeling of such a conflict would be : - Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy - Soviet Military Power reports produced by the DoD until at least 1991, the most interesting would be 1987, 1988 and 1989, to get a sense of progression of forces (unless you want to rewrite history over a long period of time). - Any literature relating to the organization and composition of the USAFE, the TwoATAF and FourATAF. Concerning French involvement, by types : - Mirage 2000C : We started receiving them in 1984, replacing Mirage F.1C, they would have been to precious at home and we don't have yet a model. - Mirage F.1C : Most would have stayed protecting France, but being phased out in favour of the 2000, some units might end up operating either with the FATac, or as escort. - Mirage F.1CR : The tactical reconnaissance variant, recently received, would have been used by the FATac over Germany. - Mirage 5F : Would have been used, but we lack the proper model for it. - Mirage IIIE : Would have been part of the French presence in Germany, helping slow down armor units. - Mirage IIIC : The last ones were retired in 1988 being replaced by Mirage IIIE or Mirage F.1C, but most were stored, so it would not be unreasonable to see some resurface should attrition dictate it. - Jaguar A : Probably the main French presence over Germany, unfortunately we lack the right model at the moment. Let's consider the forces in presence, limited by the map available : - Friendlies : - West Germany (part of the TwoATAF and FourATAF) - United Kingdom (part of the TwoATAF and FourATAF) - Canada (part of the FourATAF) - Austria (probably very fast out of an air force, but to take into account) - Denmark (little presence, the Baltic being their main concern) - Belgium (part of the TwoATAF) - Netherlands (part of the TwoATAF) - Italy (too busy in the Adriatic and Mediterranean) - Switzerland (neutral and of no interesting use) - France (keeping most interesting units at home but helping in the tactical strikes, probably basing units in Germany) - US Air Force Europe (unfortunately we can't have units based in England, but unless the conflict went nuclear, the F-111E/F wouldn't be seen much over Europe) - US Navy (too busy in the Atlantic and unless the Atlantic AND the Mediterranean are lost OR there has been an attrition severe enough and no other ready replacement, we shouldn't see much of them). - US Marines (too busy in Norway and Iceland) - Enemies : - USSR (Russia and other soviet states with no proper air forces) - Poland - Czechoslovakia - East Germany - Hungary

Sparkomatic> Sorry to ruin the party, but there won't be a DX10 for XP. And the comparison with Win95 is unfair, Win95 was usable, to find a fiasco of the amplitude of Vista, you have to look at the much more recent WinMe, the main difference is that Microsoft didn't bet the farm on WinMe and forced the hand of customers to migrate. Jazz5150> What's funny is that the ability to use more than 4Gb of RAM was the only selling point (all the other were cancelled during development or went FUBAR in the process) in favour of Vista for most serious users, but since that is broken and not fully fixed in SP1 (AFAIK), there is no reason not to keep using, or even switching back to, XP (better performances, better ergonomics, better security if you know to set it up, better hardware and software compatibility, lower cost, lower hardware requirement).

If I were you I would have a look at the service dates of ships and planes, it might be that you are trying an anti-ship mission with a plane at dates where no ship (tanker and cargo are the default ships) is available.

Well, depending on the way the forums are coded and the level of access to the code, that may be improved upon (some testing would convince you that anything would be an improvement over the integrated search, even using google (type your search in google and add "site:forum.combatace.com")). For a forum focusing on military simulations, it's a rather strange handicap to not be able to search designations.

To qualify as a real 5th generation fighter you usually have to have : - Stealth included in the design from the start (F-22, F-35), not added to the design to be stealth-ish/stealthier (Typhoon, late F-16, late Su-27, Rafale, Gripen). - Fusion of sensors informations. - Advanced phase array radars. - Super-cruise for fighters or high thrust to weight ratio for fighter-bombers. - High AoA manoeuvrability. - Ability to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions during the same flight. A Rafale has roughly the same range (around 1800km) as a Mirage 2000 which is just fine for France's needs but is indeed sometimes a little short in joint operations abroad. It has a supposedly better combat radius than the F/A-18C, supposedly slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, acceleration, ceiling, top speed and climb rate (on paper that is), a little more manoeuvrability due to an airframe about a decade more recent, canards, more refined FbW, a lower wing-loading. The electronics are also more recent and even though outdated by the time the plane reached production, they are more easily upgradable than the Hornet's. Due to the initial requirements the Rafale (it was designed from the start to be multi-mission, but adding stealth was an afterthought, as was the notion of super-cruise (possible on paper with some versions of the engines, not used actually and not included yet in planned updates, the focus seeming mostly on increasing fuel efficiency)) suffered less from changing missions than from lack of funding and political support and what should have been a revolutionary plane ahead of its concurrent ended up being a nearly obsolete plane entering service 10 years late and costing way too much (sometime french defence programs are reminiscent of japanese ones). The real handicap of the Rafale compared to the F/A-18C is that while able to carry more weight, it can do so with less space and pylons available, meaning that when the Rafale needs to take more fuel, it has to sacrifice ordnance, something less prone to happen with the Hornet. From what you can see on paper and from some pilot's report, we could guess that in A2A the Rafale is a better fighter than both the Hornet and Super Hornet but in A2G both Hornets are superior to the Rafale; when it comes to electronics the Rafale is ahead of the older Hornets, but behind the Super Hornet and newer ones, mostly in the radar area and considering stealth, the Rafale is probably closer to the Super Hornet. Compared to the F-35 now, on paper the F-35 looks way ahead in terms of stealth, range, electronics, slightly better in terms of payloads (even better using SDB) but probably worse when it comes to pure performance and dogfighting ability (even though the F-35 will probably be a less demanding plane to fly which might make a large difference), but stealth would/should be a large advantage for the F-35, and the F-35 would probably operate with air cover or after air superiority has been gained, while the Rafale is destined to be used as the unique type used by the French Air Force and Navy. We can't afford to work on AND order a true 5th generation plane anyway, we're working on combat drones instead (and envision having Rafales acting as command posts for wings of 5th generation combat drones (think X-45/X-47)). Anyway, enough fruitless comparisons, what is sure is that the Rafale represents a jump in capability and versatility from the various types used before (Super-Etendard and Crusader for the Navy, mostly Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Mirage F.1 for the Air Force). And one thing for sure, there soon will be happy US Navy personnel taking photos and working with an exotic bird. P.S. : Completely off-topic, is it only my impression or is there really nobody to love the F-35 ? Israel and European partners seems to border on despising the thing but going along as they have no choice and can't afford a home-grown alternative, the Navy doesn't seem thrilled about it, the Air Force sounds like it would happily scrap the whole thing and get more Raptors instead.