Flying Penguin

No it doesn't.... I'm not sure whether I'm cruel enough to throw it out, it must fall foul of at least one toxic waste law! :music_whistling:

Americans have got a lot to answer for......

But otherwise how do you keep the kids quiet whilst you prepare the steak and ready the beer to go with it? I guess if they don't like cookies there's always gaffer tape :huh:

As long as they're not "special" cookies... ;)

Or put one of these on the fridge for easy reference.... :thumbup:

Location?

Any joystick will be a "good upgrade" from a keyboard. At $30 it's cheap, decent enough and it's not the end of the world if it breaks after a year or two. Doesn't hold a candle to a high end stick in terms of configurability and build quality, but it doesn't cost $300+.....

I quite like this one, it may be dairy free but you'd never know and you can do them as simple banana muffins if you don't want to do the topping: Prep Time: 2 hours Cook Time: 20 minutes Total Time: 2 hours, 20 minutes Yield: About 18 cupcakes Ingredients: For the Banana Cupcakes: 1/2 cup dairy-free margarine 1 1/2 cups sugar 3 large eggs 1 cup mashed banana 1/4 cup coconut milk 1 T. lemon juice 2 cups all-purpose flour 1 t. baking powder 3/4 t. baking soda 1/2 t. salt For Assembling: 1 Recipe Vegan Dark Chocolate Ganache, chilled but not set* About 1 cup shredded sweetened coconut 1/2 Recipe Vegan Buttercream 18 cherries, fresh or maraschino, for topping Preparation: 1. Preheat the oven to 350 F. Line 18 muffin tins with cupcake liners and set aside. 2. In the bowl of a standing mixer, cream the dairy-free margarine until creamy, about 1 minute. Add in the sugar and mix at a medium-high speed for about 3 minutes more, or until the mixture is well-combined and fluffy. Add in the eggs, 1 at a time, beating well with each addition. After the eggs are combined, beat for another minute or so before adding in the mashed banana, coconut milk, and lemon juice. Beat these ingredients in until well combined. Set aside. 3. In a medium-sized mixing bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, baking soda, and salt. In several additions, add this to the margarine-banana mixture and beat until the mixture comes together (but don't overmix!). Pour the batter into the prepared liners, filling each liner about 2/3 of the way full. Bake for 16-20 minutes or until the surface of the cupcakes springs back when touched. Allow cupcakes to cool in the pan for 15 minutes before transferring them to a wire cooling rack to cool completely. 4. Assemble the cupcakes. Drop about 1 T. of the ganache* onto the center of each of the cupcakes, allowing it to spread out but still leaving a thin ring of banana cupcake showing. Sprinkle a tablespoon or so of the shredded sweetened coconut onto each of the ganache circles. Using a pastry bag, pipe a few tablespoons of the vegan buttercream frosting on top of the coconut, and then top these small mounds with a cherry on top. Enjoy! *Ganache should be chilled but not set when placing on the cupcakes. If it is set, it will be impossible to spread, but if it is still warm, it will run off of the sides of the cake. I prepare my ganache while the cupcakes are baking, allow it to sit out on the counter for about 15 minutes, then place in the refrigerator until it is cold but not set. (The timing on this varies, so just check up on it every fifteen minutes or so until it is done. :thumbup:

In which case my assumption that supersonic flight would introduce new complications not seen in the SU25 AFM was right, even if my aerodynamics was a little off.... :thumbup:

But wouldn't the z-fighting be limited only to the bottom of the tracks (which are near co-planar to the ground) rather than the section of track which is raised off the ground and around the drive wheel?

It might be a graphical glitch, but in that one it looks like you've tracked him..... Without a computer with CA nearby I can't experiment, but could that tank still move? I didn't think CA represented manoeuvre kills, but from zooming in it definitely seems that a few of those near hits are having some effect, although I'm not sure if it's intentional.

I was thinking more of the passing through the transsonic speed range (~0.85 - 1.2 Mach), where you will get varying amounts of separation of airflow which, at a very basic level, must at least have some impact in the form of buffeting, even though 'old school' problems like Mach Tuck (demonstrable in the SU25) are probably not an issue for the F-15. However I am neither an F-15 driver nor an aerospace engineer, therefore I can't state with absolute certainty what the effect will be. True, but bird in hand and all that...

Vanja and IP are correct on the definition, but, if you have FC3, for a practical demonstration, compare the SU25A with the F15C, particularly in high-AoA flight, landing, spin departures etc. You will notice that the F-15 feels a lot more scripted, it always seems to depart in the same way, it is a lot more predictable if you get the landing a bit Pete Tong... In comparison, the Su25 moves more smoothly between modes of flight (i.e. there is no magic switch that says "spin = on") and has an awful lot more subtlety to the flight model, for example being able to pick up on early (and subtle) stall cues and react to them properly. Now what complications will arise when you throw supersonic flight into the mix, I don't know, but it will definitely improve* the feel of the flight model no end..... Cheers, Jamie *as against reality, so it will no doubt make it harder....

That strikes me as a horrible compromise and complete immersion killer for anything other than the strategic command view. Whilst the strategic elements are desirable, nerfing the 3D world (where most people will be playing in a multiplayer game) is a very poor idea. To take a couple of examples, if I'm shooting at a convoy from my KA-50, the units should scatter/react in a non scripted fashion. If they just sit there (or react into the same pattern they always do), it's quite a big immersion killer. I might as well be shooting at static targets. The same happens if I'm playing as a tank. If my platoon (for example) is in a turret down battle position on a ridgeline, if all tanks are moving as one, I can't move one tank forward to hull down in order to fire, without the whole platoon moving forward with me, and if the battle position isn't exactly the same shape as the formation (e.g. if there is a slight curve), I have to choose between using a line and exposing part of my platoon at all times, or a wedge and having to move the whole platoon too far forwards for the flank units to fire. As soon as you introduce the ability to target individual vehicles, you either have to completely prevent or restrictively script every movement of an individual vehicle, so that any client can derive where the vehicles are, or transmit data about the status of each one, at which point you are back to square one. In isolation, if played alone, platoon/squad level units work fine, but this isn't a solely strategy game, the interaction with the wider DCS 3D world is what makes it worthwhile, and any trade offs that fundamentally compromise the 3D world are going to be unacceptable to a lot of players (otherwise you might as well be playing Combat Mission : Shock Force, or FlashPoint Campaigns : Red Storm, both of which are better "pure" strategy games). Cheers, Jamie

Remind me, how long have we been waiting for Nevada?

You forgot the third option, "Someone should start making more maps, don't care where, as long as they are good...."

Bottom left corner, between Ctrl & Alt....

The problem with fighter crews is that without History Channel 'Dogfights' style blow by blow analysis its very hard to make the uninitiated viewer understand the interdependence of these guys in individual aircraft, without reducing it to Pearl Harbour style pew pew scenes. With bombers you can have Marty holding Chuck's bullet riddled body whilst he tearfully tells of his 6 daughters and asks for a message to be passed to his wife, with Marty letting out an anguished cry as Chuck dies, the crew looking on in tears. TV gold.....

Those are some mighty fine wheel brakes if they work several hundred feet up ;)

Appreciate that and any step down that long road is a welcome one! :thumbup:

I would love CA to be a true competitor to SBP (which, if you haven't played it, is awesome and worth every penny), but there is an enormous gap to fill to get there, even if the vehicles and ballistics become more accurate and less generic. The most obvious element is the level of terrain detail ( by which I mean things like detailed height maps, terrain smoothing and thick tree cover) as opposed to looking like ARMA 3. Looking at the latest EDGE screenshots (as at the 8th) it's not particularly reassuring that it's going to enough of a step up to make CA playable as a tank sim rather than a strategy game/target range... SBP v3, even though it's a big step up from v2.6, has pretty workmanlike graphics, but the terrain height detail gives you enough workable hull down positions that it's possible to play, rather than the (current) CA problem of having massive open bowling green style plains and trying to do strange things behind unrealistically sharp crests in order to use them as a battle position. Then there's things like dug in positions, obstacles, realistic artillery, proper handling of thermal signature, ricochets, tree being colideable and blocking line of sight (a key one!), improved damage model, more dynamic formation level control etc etc.... I don't know what's planned for the CA update and I don't seriously expect all those areas to be addressed, but I think they are necessary if CA is ever to become a "serious" tank sim. It's not a small job. On the problem of mixed mode servers. It's not having the A-10 hunting you that's the problem, it's the fact that most people play with the expectation that they can respawn and re-join the fray so unless you are playing an Iraq 1991/2003 style one sided drubbing scenario, realistic threats and realistic ratios of ground to air forces (i.e. not having an infinite supply of A-10's on call for the whole of a 2-3 hour ground battle) are going to be a bit of a culture shock. I really really want CA to be great, I'd love a serious tank sim with a realistic representation of airborne assets, but it's currently the only module that I could honestly say disappointed me and, whilst I will reserve my judgement until the announcement, I suspect that the changes will not go nearly far enough, at least in part because they would involve uneconomic engine changes.

Well I think 6 years use (and still going strong) from my X52 Pro represents quite good value for money, especially when you consider the design life of electronic goods in that price range seems to be about 2 years.... Or I could have paid twice the money* for a Warthog... *and technically had to wait another 3 years, if I'm being picky....

Perfect! Never noticed that before so feel better now :thumbup:

Quick question, does this now remove the functionality to log in and see all serials bound to my account? The MySerials page was great for re-installing and saved dragging out all my old emails etc, especially for modules bought outside of the ED store (Steam, GameFly, retail boxings etc) Is there any way to achieve the same thing in the new interface? It's not obvious from my little play with it... And if it's gone can we please have it back? Pwetty Pwweeeeessssseee? Cheers, Jamie

But I thought we were only getting one, even if they are very closely related versions....