Jump to content

pho3nix

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pho3nix

  1. All you guys have valid points, but to clear up some issues, IRST does not primaraly depend on image quality (adaptive optics) simply because you are just trying to detect the source, no image it (yet), also the discussion about irradience is correct, but as you all stated, larger diameter = higher angular resolution, this can be improved via 2 or more detectors placed at a distence and measured coherentley (phase) which can be easaly done via optical fibres. with this respect you could have x amount of gimbled detectors on you aircraft all linked together to provide the same irrediance with much higher angular detection. Just think about it. PS the detectors may only be the size of a AIM-9 head or so behind a indium-tin oxide window to preserve X-band conductivity
  2. Hey man, like you said you don’t want this to turn in to a lefty vs. righty thread, but just a bit of real world perspective, when i was doing my aptitude testing for the RAAF we did al the maths and stuff and we also did a motor skills series of tests, where we all (including L and R) had to use both hands to control a randomly moving point on the screen using the two sticks. The catch was that one hand controlled vertical and the other hand horizontal and during the test the controls would swap so one hand would do the function of the other plus randomly swapping between reverse and normal. All of us, both right and lefthanders were all tested equal due to this. there were also a multitude of other tests, but my point is this If you do something that is completely foreign for a period of time, the human brain is quite capable of adapting... even for a 53 year old brain :thumbup:
  3. :D :D :D :megalol: :yay: :clap_2: :D :D :D Cant wait !
  4. I know that this may be going a little OT, but with all the talk of people geting married to FO and having its babies:music_whistling: , (just to be clear i will get it also if it delivers what it says it will deliver) we all play LOMAC, we all have followed the progress of BS and most of us have used F4, so it is realy encoraging to me that we all love the absolute realism factor, but as far as i can tell interms of FM only LOMAC has demonstated this fidelity with FC and if we are taking the ED testers and ED themselfs seriosley the avionics is at worst going to match that of F4 but without the constraint of 2D - 3D pit. What iam geting to is this. If BS is a supream demostration of what LOMAC can do, it is only a function of time, man power, money and publisity that we will get the F-16 and F/A-18 as stated on the Battle sim web site. (although they have taken this down shortley after posting that fact:P ) Just imagen, u are siting in the pit of one of these two figthers with ur TIR4 on, enbarked on a BARCAP, then u tilt ur head to look behind u and around the seat (6DOF) than back to get back in to the field of view of the outstandingly realistic hud:pilotfly: . Even if no one is there, it is still a fealing to be experenced. Basicaly LOMAC has the best chance of implementing this properly and faithfully... in my opinion any way;) P.S. I also dont dont belive the clause of restricted information on these two fighters as ED are already working with the proper governing bodies to create the A-10C personal simulator.
×
×
  • Create New...