Capt.LoneRanger

Planes flipping on the runway also indicates the pilot is currently ROFLOL. :D

Benchmarking ???? :smartass: Remember it is a pre-alpha shown to the audience the first time, with many people fearing what kind of machine is neccessary to run it. And as good as it looks, it will be a lot less hardware-demanding than LOMAC.

If you want to stay with WinXP 32bit forever, that's fine, but you won't get drivers for 64bit or Vista. :mad: TM obviously has given up supporting that hardware - for almost any other stick and wheel there are newer drivers for other systems.

That is not correct. The 8800gtx is about 600-650 Euros, little less US $. ATI confirmed their x2900 cards will be 150-200 bucks less than that, mostly because they manufactured their GPUs in the AMD-processing factories, which were much more sophisticated. It will also use a lot less power than the 8800 and produce less heat, accordingly. PS: 9550 is an AGP-card

Thanks for the update. Let's hope the provided data for the A10 will bring us an A10-Addon or sim, sooner or later. Internationally, IMHO that would motivate a lot more people to get LOMAC, than the Russian planes. Especially the A10, as it is one of the most famous planes and still in service. :thumbup:

:huh: The Voice-Input-programs I used are calibrated for your own voice. You don't need to say "Eject" to eject. Infact, you can map yourself saying "aaaaarghh" to eject, or whatever. It only has to be the same thing you say and in the same way, to make it work. So, I guess that language thing was rather some sort of a not so funny joke, as these tools can be very helpfull, especially for beginners.

I also doubt that you'll need to engage or disengage the Batteries or Ejection-Seat-System in a fight, as well as you won't need to check cockpit-lights, engine starting system, canopy-hatch, etc. Just map the main functions to stick and keyboard and there you go.

It's a bug. The gear is not rendered. Maybe a non-flyable made flyable? :D

Cool! :thumbup: Ich glaub, ich fang auch mal wieder an zu basteln, wenn ich das sehe. Gute Arbeit und saugute Ideen!

When we went to Bavaria early this year, we saw 2 AH64D Longbows. :thumbup:

:smilewink: Nope - well, not completely. :D

Indeed - but this date is not from a company inside the CIS, is it? You may remember FC was released to the western market via download only for several weeks, at least.:D So, if you say Christmas Eve is on 24/12/2006 means it is actually someday in December 2006? :music_whistling: One look down from the monitor and to my desk-calender - done. Took about 2 seconds.

The delay was announced weeks, if not month ago. There was a beta-testing-thread on this forums, with some updates and it was clear that it won't be released this year, due to further information incoming about the systems of the BlackShark that the team wanted to implement and test. That has nothing to do, though, with the hypothetical release-date.

Well, Aldega, you're long enough active in this community, to know EagleDynamics IS the producer AND publisher. So, while your first statement is true for 99% of the gaming market, it is not for LO:BS. "Done" is actually the state, at which it is released. There is no such thing as complete, but there is a state at which the main goals are met or the team decides to publish it for other reasons (like getting money for their work). At this time, it is "done", not "finished". :smartass: Other than that, giving the distance of that date ahead, it is a) completely nonsense to publish a concrete date. Especially a tuesday, which is at least in Europe an extremely odd day. 90% of the releases are on thursday or friday. b) it sounds a lot more like "until that date, we'll be able to deliver", instead of a concrete date. Again, given the fact EagleDynamics is publisher and producer, what sense would it make to give them a date, as SOLE RESELLER ON EARTH, and leave everybody else in darkness, including their own download-page. Sorry, makes no sense at all.

Since when does a reseller know a releasedate before the programmers do? There is no release date, there never was and there won't be until it's done. So, reactivate your brains and wait for news first hand, not from somebody looking into some crystall ball.:doh:

Remember the basic code is almost 10 years old? Of course the flight-modell is very much simplified. More simple than in Bf2? No. But then, you have to take into consideration, that flying in BF2 is not hard because of the better flight-modelling, but because of the completely disregarded laws of physics. In BF2, for example, you cannot maneuver when you don't attach full collective, the same way you turn the sharpest with afterburners on and at full speed. So of course it is harder to fly in BF2 in some regards but that does not mean it's more real ;)

Awesome skin :notworthy:

Yeah, that's an Iraqi Mig25. One of those things, Iraq never had to Saddams knowledge. :huh:

:) The life I mentioned does not evolve on the comet, but on the origin of the comet. And one of the possible origins for a comet is a planet and that a planet can support life is out of doubt, I believe. Nevertheless comets do very well evolve and get formed by the sun, they cannot generate life however, as the frozen water facing the sun is instantly vaporized and bombarded by particles and radiation. The debate about the "worms" found with the electron-microscope is allready over, to be honest. Despite the fact, that living things to not need a concentrated DNA, as said before, which is the most important reason for a minimum size aspekt for a bacteria, these "worms" were allready proven to be traces of the impact, where the meteorite was born. That happened the same way most comets were born: By collision of a planet with another large object. This meteorite, however was so close to the impact, life in whatever form would have been vaporized. The lines were proven in experiments to be exactly the same deformations that happen to most materials, including minerals and metals, when they are close to an explosion. Still there are several meteorites containing primitive life or fossils.

Well, if you explain definitions, you should also mention, that comets are not meteorites. Comets are large objects that pass the solar system with a more or less large flare, consisting of dust and vaporized water, that is burned or scraped of the side facing the sun. On the other hand, as you allready described, comets cannot produce life. However, that conclusion is very vague, as most are parts of planets, especially the ones containing large portions of ice. And these planets can very well include life, life which is shock-frosted, if not too close to the impact point. Then again, there are many organisms, that can be deep-frozen and still become alife, when they get warm again. :smartass: And to bring in some more ideas: Remember the stones that were originated from Mars? They were found on the moon and they also contained forms, that probably were bacteria, very familiar to those on earth. Other meteorites are also known to contain fossils.;)

Actually there are many bacterias and cells on earth, that either do not contain a centralized core DNA or don't have that all the time. Humans, for example. While the cell in it's normal state has a DNA, there are some reasons this DNA is far more difficult to detect - that is, when the cell has just multiplied. The DNA is the rebuild from a single RNA strang. Still it's close to impossible earth is the only planet containing life. Just think about the organisms that life near or directly attached to black smokers in depths of 1.5-5km at a water temperature of 80°C+. And we're not even talking about bacteria here!

Depends on what CPU you have. The 8xxx series nVidias need a DECENT multicore CPU to to run adequately. Even the gap between 6800 and 7800 is marginal, if you don't have the according CPU. With my A46 3200, even having it overclocked to its max, the performance increase was noteable, but not worth the price, if I had the choice (my old card died :cry:) .

I doubt the engineers forgot all they learned from the 2 rotor helicopters, when they built this machine. :smilewink: I think this is an awesome step into the future. It has overcome the (speed-)limits of an helicopter and is allready finding it's place as an airtaxi in some major cities around the world. Besides that, as the movie shows, this baby sounds awesome! :thumbup:

Same principle. Look at how far away the runways are. They probably can be even used much more effective than parallel runways, due to way less turbulences between the takeoffs - you just pass the route quickly. Yet, they still share central facilities and infrastructures.

I'm an architect and urban planner, and I can asure you, this shape has nothing to do with a Nazi-Architect or something like that. The very same discussion was going on at the IL2-Forums a few days ago. As an architect, you have to maximise the building area on the given ground and you also have to minimize central installations like stairwells, cantinas and lifts. This building-class is called a 4-spanner, because it has 4 wings connected to a central facility. Some have only 3 or 2 some have even more and look like stars or something. Now, given the available ground, with the common cross, you have a lot of unused space. But if you use other shapes (there are a bunch of similar buildings with different shapes next to the "swatiska-building") you either loose the central facility functions or the open access to the fields between the wings of the buildings. At the same time, you cannot place the buildings too close to another (for various reasons). So, the cross was added additional wings in orthogonal shape to raise the overall building area while maintaining the above rules. So, nothing special about it, if you know the background. :thumbup: