TomOnSteam

That's what I mean, you only have to make a few small changes and it becomes a "unique design". The CH stick is more or less the same as an F-16 / A-10C stick, but they've changed it enough, and they aren't selling it as an official replica so the licensing isn't required. From what I understand, the warthog throttle is only licensed for marketing purposes. It looks more credible for customers to by buying something with the US Air Force logo and branding on it - which is different to being licensed for production by the manufacturer because your using their blueprints 1:1 I'm fairly certain this will go down the same round as CH.

I think it depends on how closely you make it to the original. If it's just based on the actual planes and not a 1:1 replica, and as well as not using offical brands and logos then I doubt any of that legal stuff applies. (I doubt Thrustmaster did any of that with the cougar or warthog, and I doubt CH did it with their Fighter Stick)

Exactly - and that's what the kangaroo was doing :) Honestly I'm glad he only punched the kangaroo.

Hang on, lets get the story straight - the kangaroo was defending itself in it's own habitat against two aggressive hunting dogs which were brought there for the purpose of attacking wildlife - and then the kangaroo gets punched for self defense. So I'll turn the question around and you ask you what you would have done, if a two of these dogs were attacking you and your family in your home? The answer to "What would I have done" is that I would never put my dogs in danger to begin with by training them to attack other animals. It is also illegal for dogs to harass wildlife. He and his mates are a class act - this was a trip for his friend to shoot animals as a dying wish :S Most regular folks just settle for meeting their sporting heroes.....

What an absolute bogan loser. Running around with a knife thinking he's rambo :doh: What he did was completely illegal (yeah we had to make it illegal, because apparently there are so many of these idiots in Australia that it had to be legislated). It's being investigated by the RSPCA, I hope they make an example of him. EDIT: oh wow this "gentleman" is a zookeeper.....hopefully he doesn't punch the animals in the zoo like this.

Not that I did this to get any kind of reward - I just wanted DCS to be able to be enjoyed by more people (especially those like me who have no flight or sim experience) but I have written many tutorials that have been viewed and praised by 25,000 people :) (http://steamcommunity.com/id/tomlobster/myworkshopfiles/?section=guides) I'm not saying I deserve to win, but perhaps it'll convince me to write some more tutorials if I have an actual HOTAS to create them with :D

It's always sad to hear about someone becoming ill. Hope you get well soon :) My uncle had a heart-attack a couple of years ago - he's fit and active, but it still hit him. The cardiologist told him he was likely to have more in the future because of the way his arteries looked and because of his diet. Well my uncle is still alive and well, and hasn't suffered any more heart-attacks since he bought this book http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/ I know it's not the same as a stroke, but it works the same for the most part. It's arteries in your brain instead of your heart. Just wanted to share this because it saved my uncles life and perhaps it will save someone else here too. За здоровье!

very nice, and it's free :)

I guess it all depends on how it's implemented - a lot of green technology gives the power back to the individuals. Such as those Earthship homes which are completely self sufficient from power to water, and some of the food is grown inside the home. Of course this wouldn't work for everyone, but just giving an example that green technology doesn't necessarily mean we have less control of our lives.

This would be the best DCS mod ever :) Instead of "Pull Up" we'd get a "Bork bork bork" :megalol:

For sure! Not only would the environment be better for it, but so would our health (and healthcare costs!) I guess eating feral camels could be advertised as "extreme free-range" :)

You're spot on about the fishing - experts are saying fishless oceans as early as 2040. I'm too not far from Western QLD, and I'm familiar with the image farmers like to portray, but sadly the grazing animal thing is quite misleading. This Australian footage shows where the vast majority our meat, eggs and dairy, comes from. I'm not trying to tug at the heart strings, just pointing out that the cattle we see running in red sand, and grazing sheep are just a dot in the big picture - because to breed and feed the several billion animals that we eat each year in Australia, they simply have to be farmed in this intensive form. What this means is that these farm animals are not feeding from the land, they are being feed GMO soy, grain, corn etc from land that could be used to grow human edible foods instead. And it's said that over 80% of arable land (worldwide)is being used to grow crops for farm animals - and that we would require 70% less land to feed all of us with plant foods. It's not quite this straight forward, but essentially feeding 80+ billion animals each year requires a lot more crops than feeding only 7 billion humans.

But how will they get the cows to swim underwater :music_whistling:

This is exactly why I have a respectful ceremony for my plants: -First I bathe them in only the finest waters that my kitchen tap provides. -Then I place them gently on my sacrificial alter which the unenlightened people call a cutting board. -I make sure I proclaim a holy prophecy for all nearby to hear, such as "Dinner will be ready in 20 mins!". -I then place the remainder of the plant into the bin of rebirth. -I decorate the sacrificed plant with decadent salts and spices to aid in it's journey into my heavenly esophagus. Ramen :) Statistically yes, if we were to eat only lettuce and nothing else it would be less efficient, because lettuce has almost no calories, so it loses on the "calories in" vs. "calories out" numbers. But that's a really poor argument which the animal industry spokes people use to justify their very profitable businesses. It's their way of trying to stop rational conversation by diverting the attention to sensationalism instead. Because the longer honest discussion is delayed, the more money can be made in the mean time. This is always the case, from gun laws, to tobacco, to fossil fuels and everything in between. It's a strategy that unfortunately works. Their first strategy works as follows:- if a problem is pointed out, point out an absurdly extreme situation so that people at the extreme ends of the argument (who are always the loudest) end up drowning out people how are focused on solving the issues. Their second strategy is to play on people's fears of: not eating meat must mean that the only food left to eat is bland, unsatisfying salads. (as in my OP, not one salad in those foods, and plenty of meat-like products which scratch the itch :D ) Thirdly pointing out a worse way to eat than the current norm, does not nullify that there are better ways to eat than the current norm. It's simply dismissing them, for no valid reason. But again, that's their strategy of smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. Watch the magic show :) But, any of us can think of worse and less efficient ways to produce food. That's not even relevant to the current issue of finding a better way to produce and consume food. When we look at it rationally: 1. Nobody that is genuinely interested about environmentalism has ever said to grow only lettuce. 2. Nobody would ever suggest to eat only lettuce since you would die from malnutrition because lettuce is nutritionally sparse. (you only eat it for crunch factor) 3. It is impossible to eat enough lettuce, ever. To eat sufficient calories you would need to eat around 25 kilograms of lettuce a day. That's not counting all of the calories burned by hours of lifting thin bits of lettuce to mouth height over and over, and chewing action, and digestion. So you'd probably need to double it to 50kg. So the basis for their argument is non-sense by any regard. And the goal being just to create fear and diversion. I'd genuinely like to know which parts you might have considered as sordid or angsty so I can work on my dialog. I like to present my views from a logical perspective, because I believe it is more credible, and as above, I'm very much against sensationalism.

The shader on that spitfire is amazing. The external views actually make it look like the plane is made from metal.

The difference is amazing! I know which eggs I would rather eat. I think a lot of vegans would consider eating eggs from rescued hens as being technically vegan, since you're not adding to the harm, in fact your making the best situation out of it. P.S. looks like they had a similar breakfast to me :P

I honestly did not expect this to be such a civil discussion!:music_whistling: The scary part of that revelation though is that this GMO crop is fed to the livestock we eat. A cow or pig eats a lot more of it than a human, so when you eat the meat or dairy, you are consuming a concentrated form of the bad things in GMOs. By eating the grain or potatoes yourself instead of filtering them through another species, it ends up being less GMO in your body overall. Not that I'm a fan of GMO, because it destroys the topsoil in the long term. Of course organic farming practices are much better, so if you can afford organic, buy it :) It's not an "Either-Or" problem. We can eat organic plants and avoid both problems:thumbup: Unfortunately yes, it is merely the beginning of a complete solution. The reason why I'm enthusiastic about changing our diets is that we are able to do it ourselves and do it now - without government regulations or without waiting for a technological breakthrough, it allows us individuals to have a say about our destiny. With solar/wind collection on each home it makes us even less reliant on governments and corporations for another one of our basic needs. But not all people are in a position where they can modify their homes, but everyone can make their diet more sustainable reasonably easily. Perhaps it will end like that after all. But when the Mars colony writes history, will the asteroid be considered a tragedy that extinguished the potential of a well meaning species, or will they say it cured the planet of the destructive hairless apes? :)

Denial is the first stage of grief. So I guess we are making some progress already :music_whistling:

Did you click the link in my OP? That food was not salad :)

I'll be fine as long as the planet is fine :) (but appreciate you asking anyway!)

Which way would you want your loved ones to pass away? The power is in our hands. Our planet is dying: 60% of wild life populations on earth have died since 1970 - in just a mere 40 years! What will happen in the next 40 years? That is up to us as individuals. Not governments, not companies. But each and everyone of us. Animal agriculture (and the agriculture used to feed 80+ billion farm animals) is causing the majority of this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/wildlife-populations-plunge-almost-60-percent-since-1970-wwf/7971972 Each time we eat, we are making a decision. If our meal contains animal products(meat, dairy, fish, eggs) then we're making the decision to make the earth inhospitable. One meal at a time the earth gets closer to turning into a barren desert. And at the rate it is happening, our children might not even pass away from old age. Please for the sake of the planet, your children and all of humanity, transition to a plant-based diet today. If we eat foods like this:https://www.google.com.au/search?q=plant+based+diet&safe=active&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=950&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWrK-0_vvPAhXFFpQKHVxYArUQ_AUIBygC#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=hearty+vegan+food then we might actually keep society from collapsing in the next 30-50 years. We might even keep the human race alive after the next 100 years. Please, everyone needs to take action now, today. It is urgent. Find whatever resources that are available to you on the internet, or at your bookstore and start eating the delicious foods that will keep the human race alive.:thumbup::helpsmilie:

If you'd like to fly the A-10C then the TM Warthog HOTAS is made for it (literally). (But you'll also need pedals, as the warthog hotas doens't have a twist grip for rudder) I personally have never liked saitek products. The x-55 especially is hit-and-miss it terms of quality. You might have no issues with spiking and phantom presses, but not everyone is so lucky. But everyone has issues with the ergonomics of the x-55 joystick because it's so large - for some reason they made it for people with giant hands, and everyone with normal hands cannot reach the buttons easily. I would recommend something like a Logitech 3D Pro - they can be found for as little as $30, and is sufficient for most aircraft. CH products are generally good quality and feel - however they're gear looks like it's from the 90s which puts many people off.

Wow that blackshark screenshot! I didn't even realise it was a screenshot when it first loaded, there are no pixels or anything. Congrats to all winners!

Nice gesture! Also just in case you decide to give away the rift, well don't forget me :P

Moc dekuju :)