fireship4

So for people who get the download version, they will not be given full information on how to use it?!

Or try Freetrack - same thing for free.

From Wikipedia.

Was this a conscious decision, as it is supported by LOMAC?

Maybe turn off UAC anyway.

In the current engine are vehicles modelled with different armour values for front, back, different angles etc? If not, now that ricochets are included will we see in future the ability to bounce bullets under a vehicle to get to the more vulnerable armour? I've seen this tought somewhere for A-10s. ps are ricochets correctly modelled in regards to the change in penetration capability etc?

hmm so the NBC protection on the tanks is a feature to protect them from their armour :)

Wikipedia is not 100% conclusive but seems to suggest Uranium and DU are not so dangerous radioactively - according to it no human cancer has been observed to be caused by uranium. In the DU article it mentions alpha radiation is not a problem as it has short range but then goes on to say that DU only emits low intensity gamma radiation... why mention alpha then? I would point out a couple of things - I was taught that alpha radiation was the most dangerous radiation. It has a short range because it is so heavily ionising - ie it has interacted so much in a short range that not many particles are left. I guess i was sceptical on info about uranium when so many companies have a vested interest in it not being too dangerous. Maybe I'm too paranoid and there is too little alpha emitted to do lethal harm. Secondly Uranium is pyrophoric which means when it is made into dust it spontaneously combusts - im sure this makes it a more effective weapon, and possibly why the earlier poster thought it might interfere with a warhead in ways other than as a shield. I dont know. ## On closer inspection it seems that yes DU does emit alpha and wiki was just referring to the u-235 in DU when talking about the gamma rays emitted.##

Weapons! I was hoping this would be next. As for suggestions for the final video, perhaps we can watch him fly a mission?

but i guess on the radar it would not be distinguishable from more trees.

Maybe have it as an option... A good comparison is Silent Hunter 4. You can spend hours tracking a merchant accross the South China Sea, end - around, come to periscope depth, calculate a firing solution and fire tubes 1, 2 and 3. Two hit, one of those is a dud. The merchant begins zig-zagging and you have to slip away. Far from finding this aspect annoying, it's all part of the tension.

Well the dialog box idea was a compromise really, so you wouldnt have to wait for repairs. A sort of abstraction maybe, though it may go too far (both ways - realistic and non-realistic). Are there persistant airframes?

Will random system malfunctions be modelled? The whole startup procedure would be better if you could actually find a problem (dont know what method you would implement for rectifying faults - you could just have a quick dialog box saying that because you found the fault it was fixed) and the possibility of an important system going down mid-mission would be interesting.