Weta43

I'm as keen on a good conspiracy theory as the next person, but if you'd applied a bit more of that critical thinking to your own theory - that the free carrier, that has already had multiple feature added to it for free to allow better interaction with the F/A-18C is somehow being nerfed to bump up sales because it's not getting all the features of the pay-ware module - you'd probably have not bothered with the post.

What ? surely he has a good point ? Why should the fact that developing new features costs money, and E.D. are trying to run a business stop them from taking the time to add all the new features of the pay-ware carrier module to the existing code of the free carrier ? It's just not fair that the tired old 'running a business' excuse should stop people that don't want to pay for the new carrier module getting all the features that the people who do buy the module get !!!

Works fine if you un-comment it - White coalition is neutral

First Turkish S-400 'squadron' badge. "It has been approved for use by the first s-400 squadron currently under formation in the Turkish military"

I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that the force of a wind on a body (wind resistance) varies with the cube of the velocity. Which is why aircrafts' 'cruise' velocity isn't the same as it's maximum speed. If I am right, then by racing everywhere at 300km/h rather than 250km/h you're increasing the wind resistance by 70% & so - as well as constantly risking blade clash - significantly reducing the range available from your fuel or the loiter time when you get where you're going.

… yeah, you get that. Th guys flying South on the original flight and then the pilots & reporters going down to interview them who were on the flight that made the recording - maybe 40 to 50 years old at the time - would make them between 80 and 90 years old now... That stuff at the beginning of the video you posted about the UFO looking like an iron bar - what looks like that in the film is just camera shake. At the time it was described as an orb / glowing ball that flew alongside / ahead of / behind the aircraft, and you can see that the only time it looks like a 'bar' is while there's camera jitter happening. The commentator must never have used a camera - the changing size and brightness are just the object going into and out of focus (big, blurry and dim, small sharp and bright), and the 'Special Frame" where the object dances & leaves a squiggle - here's a couple of photo's I took: One of one of the planets & it's moons (forget which one), and a frame I took of the same scene where I slipped & moved the camera around (& one of some mosquitos flying through the frame at the beach, 'cause it's pretty ambiguous and I like the sine waves their wings made)

& a simulation of a pushbike would be harder to control on a PC than IRL too.

A few weeks after the Kaikoura objects I referred to earlier, I was at school & we were let out of class to stand in the playground and watch a couple of glowing objects that were flying over the valley our city sat in (the city is still there - I just don't live there any more :-). Apparently they were seen by Wellington ATC's radar. As we watched they moved over the city, and then from the North a flight of skyhawks appeared over the hills, as they arrived the objects flew off in the opposite direction & left the skyhawks behind...

A copy of this I saved years ago before the site went down. Archive: http://archive.is/GFS1

Maybe the servers just have it on because people have been asking for it to be implemented for years, and it didn't occur to them that when it finally arrived, people would immediately ask for it to be turned off...

Don't be confused - generally I agree with you :) What I was saying is that a Vihkr will not hit whatever a laser shines on - that's not how their guidance system works (though a Kh-25ML would because that is how they work). (& now you mention it - if there's no lock in the dark, the pilot has to steer the missile to the target, so a blindfold would mean a miss :) )

There are photos of a lot of things at Airshows (& in the Rosoboronexport weapons export catalogues I have) that have never been made operational. No-one - certainly not I - says that there was never an R-73 or a FLIR hung from a Kamov helicopter. What has not been demonstrated in any form beyond wishful thinking is that an R-73 (or for that matter an Igla) was ever mounted in such a way as to make it an operational weapon on a Ka-50. The most logical reason for no-one being able to find a 'complete photo' is that none exist. Simple logical consequence - there reason there's no proof it happened is that it never happened... The has been said that they don't have that information, but they don't either have information to say otherwise denying them. Logically, this argument is the same as arguing that the Loch Ness monster exists because no-one has a photo of it not existing. There is no evidence that the 'standard' Ka-50 (one without extra letters attached after the 50 or a '2' after the '5') has ever been able to employ A2A missiles. Again in the air shows procedures has had IGLA mentioned as possibility for KA-50. So a sign for it, regardless that it can only be assumed that it isn't installed because they're ain't photos them in KA-50. But neither are 250kg bombs been mounted on it... Yet we have them in DCS. If appearing at an airshow or in an export catalogue was proof that working examples existed, you'd still have Moskit missiles on your Su-33, and EASA radars in your Su-27 No, I think it's a bad idea, but I think E.D. will add features that never existed to make a new module a commercially viable product. I realise some people will think it's a great idea - as I said - I disagree, and am happy to discuss why. What I'm not happy with is being told that the unrealistic is realistic. As I've said, If I take out "Igla on a Ka-50' from your argument, and replace it with 'Loch Ness monsteer in the Loch', it has the same amount of weight. It's not logically possible to prove something doesn't exist (See Black Swans), only that something does exist (See Black Swans). The burden of proof is on the person saying it does exist, and there is no proof. interesting, but apparently the case

No problem :)

Kh-25ML - maybe, Vikhr - no, that's not how it works. (& yes, all laser beams are cones, but the whole point of a targeting / range finding laser is that its beam spreads many orders of magnitude less than a common 'light beam')

Please take all the comments about switch positions and 'there is no production Ka-50, only on-going prototypes' as wishful thinking / imaginative justification / denial of reality (whichever you want to call it). If you read the entire thread you'll see that there is no physical evidence that the Ka-50 ever had the systems the new version will have. Add to that the fact that in the Russian forums ED have explicitly said that the addition of IGLAs is fictional, that no Ka-50 were made or flew with those systems (or with 3 sets of pylons, should the extra pylons appear). S.E.Bulba said to Chizh : " the “budget” daily modification of the Ka-50 (which is actually in our game) didn’t seem to have ever been planned to equip the Igla-V SUV ... at least there is no information about such plans in open sources until the project is closed." & Chizh replied "that is our assumption" Chizh also advised people trying to find evidence that such a Ka-50 existed : "I suggest not to bother much in finding the reasons for the appearance of (Igla) on the Ka-50ED, but simply to take it for granted. In this case, we wanted to."

Want to post a screenshot of what you do see ?

From what I've read, it is.

And both Saudi Arabia, and Australia each have less than 0.5 % of the world's population, but both have had time and resources devoted to creating skins for them. by your numbers, there are 15 times more women pilots per head of the world's population than pilots from Saudi Arabia or Australia, but while they can fly as an Australian or a Saudi, women can't fly as women in DCS Another fun fact - seeing as you find 6% a figure not worthy of representation - less than 5% of the world's population are native English speakers... Should we port the game to Mandarin ? There's a lot more chines speakers than English speakers - wouldn't that be fair and equitable; y'know, like a democracy? Edit - Also - you ever consider that maybe the reason that only 6% of the worlds pilots are women is that they get the same reception in the real world when they ask for their place as they do here ?

source: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 video: cpUdxPZzETk edit:

You don't need to - it's all in C++, and you can assign cores / threads from there if you want. It's the re-writing that's the hurdle, not the language.

Better looking than the F-16 !!!

I suspect the instant you heard their voices on the radio you knew they were women. Even if nothing was done with the models (though it's an order of magnitude smaller job than upgrading the model for a truck), having the option of the pilot speaking with a male voice or a female voice would let women stop feeling like they only exist in 'service' roles, and that they don't have to play 'in drag'. Also Don't you think it's weird how many white men think it's a waste of time giving representation to women and minorities, while women and minorities think it's a good idea. I wonder why it is that the two groups have such different opinions about it.

As 3WA and Etherbattx have said, the poll's not likely to give a very accurate answer. E.D. have said the vast majority of people play SP, but SP players don't have as much reason to lurk on the forums as MP players (I played SP for a year or so before ever spending any real time on the forums)

& just like I posted above... IRL, EOS works in conjunction if 'Automatic' (interleaved) mode is used, but not in encounter or pursuit modes

Maybe, but the N001 has the same processor as and a scaled up version of the antenna from, the N019. The N019's beam is only stabilised up to 120º in roll and +40º/-30º in pitch - so the 'feature' that has been implemented seems fair enough... Before various upgrades both had the same radar modes, including: "Encounter" mode (target closing): So two to SEVEN seconds to get a lock, no detection if the targets closing speed is less than 230km/h, and if the target turns away, you'll probably lose lock even if you are in STT. Pursuit mode won't detect targets receding at less than 210 km/h, and: Interleaved mode will detect targets approaching at speeds greater than 230km/h or receding at speeds more than 210km/h (Meaning targets with a relative ground speed of between +230km/h & -210km/h won't be detected. That's a big notch, then it will take between 2 and 7 seconds to re-acquire the lock). & it does automatically mimic the functions of TWS, but: