column5

I think the ones that were in our original pack had fins, which were only correct for very early tanks.

Where are these tanks available at?

The main thing, I think, would be whether the mod you are installing depends on any files in the CATs.

At C5, there is no requirement to sign up for anything. All the files are freely available to everyone in the world. At CA, the only way you can be denied access is to be banned, and as you know it takes quite a lot to earn a permanent ban. We don't automatically ban people for crticising the work of the modders here--we just hope that the criticism is constructive. Most of the accounts that have been banned were either spammers or people who went nuts in a political discussion. In stating that Dev F-Troop presumes guilt, you are probably right, and everyone should ask what right they have to sit in judgement of anyone else, given that they are mod thieves themselves--recall the flap when they stole Diego's pilot skin and claimed it as their own, resulting in Diego remving his fine work from public distribution.

What do you mean? Practically everything is interchangable between all ThirdWire sims.

That is the best plan!

No its not. Those guys want to control access to their files because...well I don't really know why...I think it has to do with ego and power. At CA anybody can sign up and membership is not screened in any way. Plus, at CA many, perhaps most, modders have signed up for the freeware licensing model, so you are not as restricted in how you use the files hosted at CA.

I don't know but you just quoted it!

Hmm I'll have to look at a clean WOI install then. I guess we have some custom stuff in the MF weap pack.

Here is what the stock SAM radars look like:

In theory, yes, but I haven't tested the effectiveness of that plan. Even better--swap out one of your flight for a fully loaded EA-6B! :D

http://www.amazon.com/Grumman-6-Intruder-W...737&sr=8-37

Definately. Interestingly, all of the stock SAM radars in WOI have the same search strenght, 80, but different track strengths. The Fansong, Flatface, and SA-8 radars all have a track strength of 75, while the Straightflush has a whopping 120 which explains why the SA-6 is so darn deadly.

Well, in really crude terms, a noise jammer attempts to overwhelm a radar with electronic...noise...and a deception jammer attempts to make the radar think the aircraft is in a different place in the sky, causing any SAMs fired to miss. A dual-mode jammer has both capabilities. Noise jammers can cover an area, while deceptive jammers only protect the aircraft carrying the equipment...in general.

I am going to repaint the A-4 pit to look like Captain Picard's toilet.

Looking through some aircraft and weapons recently it occurred to me that certain community-configured ECM systems have their effectiveness set way too high. So I took a look at the values TK has assigned to the stock aircraft and pods, and extrapolated out a progression of ECM development in game terms that I think is well-balanced. Right now I have only looked at US systems, but my research indicates that both European and Soviet ECM development was slightly to moderately behind that of the US (I would rate European and Soviet systems produced before 1990 as 5 to 10 points below contemporary US systems, with the gap closing between 1991 and 2000). Here is what I came up with...I'd be very interested to know what others think about this. In general, internal systems for large aircraft such as the B-52 were more effective than the earliest pods and systems for tactical aircraft, mainly due to there being more space in the airframe and power available. I also have the ALQ-99 system for the EA-6B, EF-111 and EF-18G being a bit better than other contemporary systems due to their specialized nature.

Uhm...I don't seem to have a ticket. <looks in stack of papers on desk> No, definately don't have a ticket.

What's next???

OK, without getting into anything classified, I have a question regarding the AN/ALQ-126 ECM system. Its easy to trace the evolution of USAF ECM pods because they put a version number on them, for example, the AN/ALQ-119(V)-15 is newer and presumably more capable than the AN/ALQ-119(V)-3. They USN uses internal ECM equipment though and since at least the early 1970s this appears to have come solely in the form of the AN/ALQ-126 and its component systems. I have only been able to ferrit out two versions, the AN/ALQ-126A and B. Can anyone comment on the frequency with which the USN updated the capabilities of these systems, and the degree of improvement that each upgrade brings? For example, the systems in service in 2008 must be more capable than those in service in 1988, even though there is nothing in the designation to indicate a change?

Coincidentally I'm re-reading a book about the A-6 right now. One of the interesting bits of information is a comparison of the percentages that avionics contributed to the cost of the Intruder and its contemporaries: A-7: 17% F-4: 20% A-6: 43% Almost half of the cost of each A-6 produced was tied up in the DIANE system and associated gear, all of which was designed to put the aircraft over the target as accurately as possible for the release of dumb bombs.

Nice!

I enjoyed SG1 but never got into Atlantis. The proliferation of mediocre Sci-Fi over the past 10 years makes me glad that I have all seven seasons of Deep Space Nine on DVD. That series had it all--great characterization, great stories, engaging long-term arcs, etc.

Good call. I'm getting a very nice, natural effect with less aggressive settings. Just +4% digital vibrance and +60% contrast.

Grab the Mirage 5BA from c5. It'll be a lot easier and is appropriate for the theater.

Excellent! Congrats to JimmyBib!