A.S

:lol: ....once, back in days i asked a girlfriend what the difference between a musicinstrument (a guitar in that case) and a girl is.... she looked wondering, while i revealed the answer: " the art, how you play it" where she then vehement replied back: No. The Sound :huh:!! (both laughed) Why bothering with little definitions, if you can feel the vibrations :smilewink:

Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light aaaaa liiiiiittle bit offtopic, ..but hey... :smartass: ... :huh: .. :book: ... :helpsmilie: Scientist John Singleton insists that Albert Einstein wouldn't be mad at him, even though at first blush Singleton appears to have twisted the famous physicist's theories about light into a pretzel. Most people think Einstein said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but that's not really the case, Singleton said. Einstein predicted that particles and information can't travel faster than the speed of light — but phenomenon like radio waves? That's a different story, said Singleton, a Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow. Singleton has created a gadget that abuses radio waves so severely that they finally give in and travel faster than light. The polarization synchrotron combines the waves with a rapidly spinning magnetic field, and the result could explain why pulsars — which are super-dense spinning stars that are a subclass of neutron stars — emit such powerful signals, a phenomenon that has baffled many scientists, Singleton said. "Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars that emit radio waves in pulses, but what we don't know is why these pulses are so bright or why they travel such long distances," Singleton said. "What we think is these are transmitting the same way our machine does." And beyond explaining what has been a bit of a mystery to the astronomical community, Singleton's discovery could have wide-ranging technological impacts in areas such as medicine and communications, he said. "Because nobody's really thought about things that travel faster than light before, this is a wide-open technological field," Singleton said. One possible use for the resulting speedy radio waves — which are packed into a very powerful wave the size of a pencil point — could be the creation of a new generation of cell phones that communicate directly to satellites, rather than transmitting through relay towers as they now do. Those phones would have more reliable service and would also be more difficult for hackers to intercept, Singleton said. Another application could be in very targeted chemotherapy, where a patient takes the drugs, and the radio waves are used to activate them very specifically in the area around a tumor, he said. If Einstein were still alive, he probably wouldn't be all that surprised by the discovery, Perez said, even if it does seem on the surface to conflict with some of his theories. "He might have thought, 'why did this take so long,' " Perez said. http://current.com/items/90301786_scientists-make-radio-waves-travel-faster-than-light.htm the next thing to come could be "you cant waste/create energy, just convert" to be approved wrong too.....or the theories of gravity (the master-riddle)...hehe Oh, btw, germans "tunneled" information (not only signal, nope, whole package) with over lightspeed long time ago....how come? look up google!

yeah...we all wait...and hopefully...it will be nice stuff with DCS a2a. (PS: you said, you cant say what you are really doing...and "KAOTWS" was a wild guess and has something to do with reverse-engineering :music_whistling:)

In addition to POST 34 (above) I just got a reply (huh, that was quick) from Mav-Jp (HFFM Maker) .. Download here for all who dont know it: http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/falcon4/Topolo/zip/H-F-F-M-manual.pdf quote: According to ED (Lead Pursuit), AF are supposed to use the HFFM files... However, OF has some features that AF hasn't especially the fuel consomption code (fuel consumption in AF is fantaisist) and the engine control code (spooling & RPM limitations for the different PW/GE engines) Additionnaly i think ED used an earlier version of HFFM with some sligthly modified CDTEF and CLTEF factors that may provoke some differences during approach with LG. JP

:doh: KAOTWS ? Btw: wrong modeled round-balistics and due to it the "drag" of your piper under G-loads in your HUD changes everything known in terms of attack geometry, terms like elbow, entry window...etc etc.... also at 0.3nm under certian situations. You know what i mean? It requires depth (mindwork) to model things right, same for FM....ok back to topic...we are drifting off... but you as "adviser" will hopefully consider pictures more wise ..wont you ;)

It is offtopic i know..but its just came in my mind....(thought jumper) and HOW MUCH it changes BFM scenario... You said master degree math....what are you doing...i never asked you actually.

The modes for refueling and taxiing are secondary -lets say- but still interesting. Although knowing that OF and FF are "tweak" or "mod" products (sometimes with wild implications) i would love to know more about weight and momentum. Can you go deeper in that, in comparsion to different verions? But most important here is....do you have somehow proof or source that the "perfromcance graphs" in terms of flightmodel or -characteristics are crucial different? Reason why i am asking is, because i am in touch with one of those guys who developed that whole thing in cooperation with engineers and Pilots and where you made me wonder already...i even pm-ed Mav-Jp also again to re-quest this ooold question.

For a market and selling priorities focusing producer this is indeed a POINT :P ... sooo Over-Geniused ...wooooow gimme gimme (offtopic and just came in my mind: have you ever considered measuring Lockons´ Bullets Ballitsitcs ( Rounds de- and accelartion Speeds/Curves and its impact on your Piper regarding G-Load? ..Do it please) :)

I wanna see that :music_whistling: (First of all you must be under 350kts to apply the rudders in any effective way - unlike Lockons´ supersonic full rudder deflections (yeah.. right rip me and them off ... lol) .....but then..... you do know that your FCS will "hold" you at alt ? But i still want to see it - if possible - just curious

:megalol: What you "feel" as real with 12000hours...is one part What you dont feel but can proof (even though it feels "unrealistic" due to its accuracy in physics transfered to a 2D screen ) is another story. I could go deeper how AF FM was modelled and by who...but let this be an open story for now.... Feel << that "Feeling" you can throw in a trashcan, even if that is the FIRST most important immersion on a screen..to judge on. Somtimes this is also very fainted due to the "screen to stick conversion" (curves etc etc joystick etc etc) .ya even gFX and sound can set you off totally (example: many say OF and AF FMs are totally different ..NO ITS NOT, but gfx, effects and sound makes you "feel" that way) .you have to split the logic of how FMs are coded....then it will be pretty soon hollow on which skripts/codes "the idea" of flight-feeling is based on and made off. Feeling is subjective ...MATH does not lie !! Anyways... just my 2cents..... (My Hope is Fighterops... :smilewink:)

WATCH THIS !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDmOt-vIL8

oooold...you figured just now? wow. Negative Gs (redout) IS different since 1st day of Realistic and Basic G-Settings. No bug... Intenional errm done..not done..whatever.. The best part is, in basic G-setting you can "kill" your Jet while your pilot has still condition to open a coke can.

I think flyBoy made a joke:huh: not sure though :music_whistling:

Kuky... I do remember myself (as i was RvE) taking out 3 good RVE Pilots out in a BVR scenario in one fight. I do remember =RvE=Flame once taking out 3 good RVE Pilots out alone in same scenario in a MIG !!! I do remember Yoda doing also same..... Possible !! Difficult BUT Possible !! Hardcore, Baby, excists..hehe :pilotfly:

LoL Fusion ...

Can i please see that Track (if excistent) once mentioned, where some assumed that there would be no way in the world to dodge missiles "like that" without "seeing Mo?re" ? Because often things are explainable even if they seem very mysterious, and i understood the messeage between your lines. I only can add this as note: Every missile in LO, you are aware of that it is - or better - will be fired, even in NEZ range WILL NOT GET, if you haven´t screwed up your executive precision, timing and PreSeT. And that is even posibile in 2D Pit with no TrackIR..and to top it, at Night ! But if you are NOT AWARE of them, YOU ARE DEAD for sue :) !

The end of your story sounds almost like a delicate party ala FalconAF BVR, where some mysterious figures try to defeat me with abstract callsigns, either blown out of my airspace or moving along in "shaking" illusions...:megalol: :music_whistling: (nice read)

That´s what i meant in posts earlier: Post 202 and 204 solution X is good or bad because ...(details, analytics) .... and its impact in current "gameplay" or/and comparsion to real condidtions solution Y is good or bad bacause ...(details, analytics) .... and its impact in current "gameplay" or/and comparsion to real condidtions ...inteligent integration of all this variables and parameters, in such a way, that they make sense in corporate operation and not only put into place in good proposition.... Yes, you do/can integrate more realistic features but you DO HAVE also (somehow you do) responsibility for the side effects in actual gameplay under all other dominant conditions (Just saying....:music_whistling: ...loosing point of view baba.. )

MACH NUMBER and AIRSPEED vs ALTITUDE MACH NUMBER is defined as a speed ratio, referenced to the speed of sound, i.e. Mach Number = Velocity of Interest / Velocity of Sound (at given atmoshperic conditions) Since the temperature and density of air decreases with altitude, so does the speed of sound, hence a given true velocity results in a higher MACH number at higher altitudes. AIRSPEED is a term that can be easily confused. The unqualified term airspeed can mean any of the following: a. Indicated airspeed (IAS) - the airspeed shown by an airspeed indicator in an aircraft. Indicated airspeed is expressed in knots and is abbreviated KIAS. b. Calibrated airspeed (CAS) - indicated airspeed corrected for static source error due to location of pickup sensor on aircraft. Calibrated airspeed is expressed in knots and is abbreviated KCAS. Normally it doesn't differ much from IAS. c. True airspeed (TAS) - IAS corrected for instrument installation error, compressibility error, and errors due to variations from standard air density. TAS is expressed in knots and is abbreviated KTAS. TAS is approximately equal to CAS at sea level but increases relative to CAS as altitude increases. At 35,000 ft, 250 KIAS (or KCAS) is approximately 430 KTAS. IAS (or CAS) is important in that aircraft dynamics (such as stall speed) responds largely to this quantity. TAS is important for use in navigation (True airspeed ± windspeed = groundspeed). Figures 1 and 2 depict relations between CAS and TAS for various altitudes and non-standard temperature conditions. The first graph depicts lower speed conditions, the second depicts higher speeds. As an example of use, consider the chart on the next page. Assume we are in the cockpit, have read our IAS from the airspeed indicator, and have applied the aircraft specific airspeed correction to obtain 370 KCAS. We start at point "A" and go horizontally to our flight altitude at point "B" (25,000 ft in this case). To find our Mach, we go down vertically to point "C" to obtain 0.86 Mach. To get our TAS at our actual environmental conditions, we go from point "B" vertically until we hit the Sea Level (S.L.) reference line at point "D", then travel horizontally until we reach our actual outside air temperature (-20EC at altitude) at point "E", then go up vertically to read our actual TAS from the scale at point "F" (535KTAS). If we wanted our TAS at "standard" temperature and pressure conditions, we would follow the dashed lines slanting upward from point "B" to point "G" and read 515 KTAS from the scale. Naturally, we could go into the graph at any point and go "backwards" to find CAS from true Mach or TAS. Figure 3 shows a much wider range of Mach numbers. It contains only TAS and Mach, since aircraft generally do not fly above Mach 2, but missiles (which don't have airspeed indicators) do. The data on this graph can be obtained directly from the following formula for use at altitudes of 36,000 ft and below: Speed of Sound (KTAS)’ 29.06 RADIACAL/of( 518.7-3.57 A) Where A’altitude (K ft) The speed of sound calculated from this formula can be used with the equation on the first page to obtain Machnumber. This equation uses the standard sea level temperature of 59E F and a lapse rate of -3.57E/1000 ft altitude. Temperature stabilizes at -69.7E F at 36,000 ft so the speed of sound stabilizes there at 573 knots. See the last page of this section for a derivation of equation [2]. ..hope that helps a bit...i saved this while back, cause it is pretty good explained... (PS: i do use also MacH in Lockon in order to know my best "turnperformance" at different altitutes)

Partially true... Considering, that few of us (so me) are in touch/contact with real pilots - may it be civil or millitary - and few of us are also very addicted to that topic itself, collecting tremendous datas and lectures over time, and actually also reading or working with much of it, also considering that few of us are also in touch with developers of various sims in simulator-history generally, it proofs out that "real" pilots do not know alltime everything 100% best. They are specialists in their branche and of course blessed with the overall knowledge due to the nature of their jobs, but you would be suprised what sometimes real pilots don´t know. Although their inputs are highly welcome, they sometimes even variate between eachother. Regardless the classified informations, there are enourmous accurate datas out there - unclassified - to work with in order to make comparsions or in order to implement those things in a sim-engine as much as it is possible in perspective. Let me give you an example ....there are folks out there who engineered 5th generations fighters, but never ever spent one minute in flight in them. (..just a mind-brigde) :smilewink:

I will never understand why people tolerate "Mirage-Fake-Shiny-Thing" Mods with flightcharacteristics and cockpits of something else, or even worse X-Wing prototypes, but protest so much against some serious logic and reasonable changes? Are we soo customer-drilled meanwhile...is brainwork painfull?

Yes i know Kuky...i asked or aimed that question with back thoughts... Many try it..... and does it work out? or does it end in "pfff maddogs...pff exploiters....pfff low flyer" ?

HighMAC :megalol:

Good old drama in traditional fashion :pilotfly: .... i just hope all will see and focus on the good parts of progressions and evolutional changes rather then "you know this, i know that better ...you just read from books, but my Mom is B52 bomber ..real reality is top secret, so we keep doing unlogic things....holy rEAl BeiloTs know things better my ###...etc etc etc.." :smilewink: ITS JUUST A GAAAAAME ! and a good one. Some do 3D-Models, some do Terrain mods, some try to do or improve other things, or how many out there realy approached aerial warfare from realisitc perpective trying to implement it in their gameplay in LockOn? ....gimme a break.

I needed a Sierra Echo Charlie here before i started to lol :lol: