Tirak

Hated it. The two best characters in the movie die in the first 10 minutes, the ending is unsatisfying, the underlying tension is stupid and lazily written, the casino section was one hundred percent pointless, the pacing drags badly and the space battles are drastically inferior to those in Rogue One. Also, IT'S FREAKING DEEP SPACE, TURBO LASER BLASTS DO NOT ARC.

Great as always, the cockpit textures are looking much nicer. I did notice however there's no SAM light on the front panel. Has any form of RWR been ruled out now?

That would not be acceptable for a DCS module, and such an endeavor would be an expensive time sink as all those changes in the exterior would have to not only be modeled, but also coded to provide the correct flight model as well as damage model. The internal layout would also have to be replicated for systems modeling and damage modeling.

The original plan was to do a GR.7 and later on a GR.9, however, certain parts of the aircraft were more heavily classified than others, leading to RAZBAM abandoning the GR.7 plan in favor of the US AV-8B(NA) due to easier access to information. Among the classified systems in question, the ECM 'tusks', featured prominently on the nose of UK Harrier IIs were cited as a specific example of a system not reproducible due to classified information.

Well if you had loaded up your Sidearms you could have knocked out the first two guns! :P

If you don't mind the interview question, if you can, what sort of features are you hopeful to implement that you haven't so far? What features have you written off as impossible without the SDK?

Cheeky FLIR tease, I approve. This aircraft certain will be very interesting to use, I anticipate a healthy rivalry between A-10C and AV-8B(NA) pilots.

The threads where you are discussed are open for any and all to see. Garrya has stated on numerous occasions that he gives you the benefit of the doubt of your experience in the face of quite a bit of pressure to join in on the numerous individuals who have pointed out weaknesses in your credibility owing to your own statements. If anything, no one has been more supportive of your claims to be an F-18 pilot than him, so i find your constant rude behavior towards him to be remarkably telling.

Yes, exceedingly polite. He has asked you to defend your points politely, he inquires for information, and at no point has he questioned your credibility. What you say is in direct conflict with what he has been told by other pilots and engineers that have been open about their credentials, as well as documented information, and so he is probing for details in hopes of gaining knowledge. Your responses have run the gauntlet from brusque to downright hostile. I would suggest that you self reflect and reset your attitude, you're the one turning this thread hostile, not Garrya.

Garrya has been exceedingly polite in all his interactions with you. He has not disparaged you in any way, in fact he has shown an immense amount of restraint given the attitude you've been giving him. I would suggest that you treat him with the same kindness and respect he has given you, as your constant thinly veiled insults towards him and his documentation make you look childish and non credible.

I think Garrya forgot to post this link. This is the thread on F-16.net where he asks the opinion of the board what they think about the observations made of the F-35 demo. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341

Still can't, she rolls and accelerates on idle if you don't have the brakes on. Instructions to the pilot are when the speed reaches a certain point to give hard braking to slow the aircraft down, as opposed to riding the brakes which induces more wear. I'm just wondering how he figures the Valkyrie had a clean test record given that the wake vortex was so powerful when the wings were drooped, that on a demonstration flight it sucked in the chase plane and destroyed both aircraft. Also: The video of this landing is truly spectacular: https://theaviationist.com/2015/12/09/xb-70-rare-emergency-video/

I've bolded the relevant section since you seemed to miss the preceding sentence. You're asking for an AI to make that determination in a non ideal environment. A worm is destructive software meant to cause damage to the system its infecting. In essence, 'trashing' the underlying architecture.

Covered this. Range safety is a series of IF/THEN statements. We're not talking about a rolling dogfight, or a difficult approach, or the implications of whether or not an engagement order was legal. Range Safety equipment isn't designed to operate in an environment where the enemy is actively trying to insert a worm into your system to trash your protocols.

These are not weapon systems. They are test drones, small and simple placed in a controlled environment. They are not weapons placed in the chaotic world, going to war. People are not actively trying to destroy these drones physically and software wise. AI is not there. AI is decades from being given heavy weapons and turned loose. Of course the military and the US are experimenting with this technology, but it is still a long long way off from replacing manned systems in bulk and being reliable. You have an oddly simplistic way of viewing AI given your background. Programming an AI is not a series of IF/THEN statements, you're creating something that learns, that forms its own connections, and now you've got to cram the ability to differentiate legal and illegal orders, reject false input, keep in mind who friendlies are and why it's fighting on your side. And its got to do all that while someone is actively trying to uplink a destructive program to either cause it to kill itself, go postal and kill friends, or otherwise take it out of the fight. You're trying to make this AI that regardless of battle damage will keep on your side. Hell, even modern computing isn't that bullet proof, the F-35 had an issue where you had to turn the software off and restart because of software issues and it doesn't use AI. We already don't know how to properly handle an AI without someone actively trying to get it to do things we don't want it to do, and your insistence that these things simply 'work' because we've seen a little drone handle being pushed around is missing a huge amount of problems currently being worked on.

Oh I can assure you that these software failure haven't been totally thought through nor a solution to them fully developed. The reason I can assure of this is because you're talking about a signifigant hurdle in AI development, how to handle the way an AI thinks to avoid it doing things we don't want it to do. There are large portions of the scientific community still dealing with this problem and a solution still hasn't been reached. Furthermore, the simple "Error Detected, kill self" idea is hogwash. First of all the software would need to understand that it failed and have a state within it allowing a self termination. Allowing self termination leaves you vulnerable to enemy computer intrusions aimed at getting your drones to kill themselves. A rocket does not have AI, it has a simple command line "If I am x percentage off optimal flight path, self destruct". Combat by its very nature rends such simple instructions worthless. Manned operated drones are not autonomous, which is what we're talking about. A combat capable drone would be larger than an MQ-11 and you know it. Likely similar in size to a modern fighter aircraft, and in that circumstance, a simple pop chute to recover is not going to happen. Furthermore, what is enemy territory? How does it know where it is? How does it recognize self failure? In an autonomous drone, with no uplink, these are significant hurdles, and if it includes an uplink, that uplink is a point of attack for a modern cyber capable enemy. So now we're back to software failure. The drone skips over a line of code and now is unpredictable with heavy weapons. I'm afraid I disagree, you're not thinking outside the box. You expect these things to simply work, but the problem is you haven't thought sufficiently about how. There are entire schools of research dedicated to the AI problem and how to resolve it, and those people with engineering and computer science PhDs haven't come up with a solution yet. One is a car that drives on the road. The other has to fly itself around the planet, make complex descisions in air combat, and you've given it heavy weapons to attack targets in remote areas of the planet. Autonomous Cars are still decades away from being safe and reliable, and even modern cars are vulnerable to cyber attack. You're not thinking this through. Of course it's not a dead topic, the government would kill to get their hands on a fully capable autonomous drone, but we are many decades away from being able to field one on the level you're talking to replace man operated systems.

If a manned aircraft suffers a software failure, the mission is scrubbed, at worst an aircraft is lost. If an autonomous weapon system suffers a software failure, well now you have a very unpredictable piece of equipment with heavy weapons flying around and if it's fully autonomous, no way to call it back without destroying it. Add in software attacks, designed to create failure states that could be catastrophic, I find people claiming that fully autonomous weapons are in the near future to be overly optimistic about the technology. 'Manned' Drones are subject to communications lag, reduced situational awareness and most dangerously, communications override, the story of insurgents being able to download the video link from drones being just the tip of the iceberg. None of these features make them suitable for air superiority in a modern contested environment, and against an enemy proficient in cyber warfare, drones can be more harm that good if not properly developed. I do not view the F-35 as being at all threatened by autonomous weapons systems simply because the technology to safely provide them to a level acceptable to the country and at a cost acceptable to the government is not there yet.

Viggen radar code is proprietary to HeatBlur. The F-18C radar code isn't out yet.

Not to be a wet blanket, but RAZBAM handed off a beta version for E3, so that image may have just been that, and not ED QA Testing.

Asymmetrical balance is a concept pursued in the RTS world for decades. I don't buy the argument that you can't be balanced except by being identical. You balance factions by providing different supporting elements, weapons and things like flight times to the front and lives. Finding that balance is difficult, but well worth attempting, and not at all a dirty word to be avoided in a discussion of mission making and tweaking.

So what you're asking for is A-10s and F-15s vs L-39s? :huh: Balance isn't a dirty word when talking about mission design, in fact that's its proper place. Modules get made realistically, then the mission designer balances them so both sides have an equal opportunity to win based on the strengths, weaknesses of their modules, as well as whatever balancing in mission effects the mission designer uses to help.

Apples to tangerines. The aircraft elevators are in development, the Viggen is a completed rigged 3d model.

Alexander Zass. Legendary Russian strongman, wrestler and animal trainer.

False

I think Textron's going to have one hell of a hill to climb.