sobek

That applies just if you are talking about tank munition. In the grater scheme of things, anti armor are a class of projectiles that either owe their target effect to their high terminal kinetic energy or stored chemical energy, the point being that in either case, the energy is sought to be focused on a very small portion of the target hull to achieve a maximum of armor penetration. APFSDS is just one way to achieve this. E.g., the PGU-14 is considered API but is not of the SABOT type. Also, penetrator rods need not be made from DU, tungsten carbide has also been used.

Das kannst du vergessen. Wenn die Mods meinen, dass einer als Mod taugt und Bedarf besteht, wird er von ED gefragt. Da könnte ja sonst jeder kommen. :) Das nur am Rande, damit sich keiner hier unnötige Arbeit macht.

Wir hatten das mal diskutiert, als ich noch ein Mod war. Du musst dir mal die Größenverhältnisse der deutschsprachigen zur englischsprachigen Community vor Augen halten. Der Aufwand lohnt sich kaum.

This is somewhat a moot comparison. The GAU-8 is mostly intended for using KE penetrator munition, they just use combat mix (or exclusive HE as of late) to be able to supress infantry/soft targets with it. The Mk108 shells would never survive being fired with as much kinetic energy from a weapon of that barrel length.Different tools for different jobs. I don't know, that may have been true back then, but nowadays manufacturers have gone from installing smaller caliber high rate of fire weapons instead of "sniper rifles" in their planes.

Yup, RAID0 means you're playing with fire. I learned that the hard way... :)

Or responsive design. Mudspike does this very nicely, e.g.

That should make for a popular MP mission. :)

Filed a bug report?

Kudos to Valve. Unfortunately that doesn't make their EULA less obnoxious one bit.

You'll probably have a hard time finding them in the English section. Also the fighter pilots usually like to stay incognito so they don't constantly get asked about restricted information.

Those have been there for 10 years, they are only now being updated with realistic flight models, which take a long time to make. The 'clickable things' is what makes up a substantial amount of the work. Because they are working on other WWII planes first. LOL, in any kind of realistic mission, you'll never see an A-10 because his top cover will have killed you long before you even know anybody is there. If your engines don't flame out first, that is.

I'd say that the complexity of operating a realistically modelled airplane doesn't intrigue most people.

There's so many misconceptions in your post, i literally don't know where to begin. Like for starters, you should really read the description of the DRM again, because the way that you describe it is not how it works. Then there's the concept of 'balance'. There is no such thing as balanced airframes, balanced forces, balance of whatever. The reason why no modern russian airframes are being simulated is because the threshold in russia for being charged with espionage is set comparatively low. And the Su-34 is way too new for a simulation of DCS level being remotely possible. If you think the F-18 is a substitute for the A-10C, then you don't understand either planes' roles very well. The Mustang has been out since 2012, the other two are much newer. No, where did you hear such a thing? CFTs don't make much sense on dedicated A2A aircraft.

By the way, that link is broken. Let the rumor-milling commence. ;)

I'm not talking about state regulation. I'm talking about prevention by the end user. You can either opt out of spam or do your best to prevent your mail adress falling into the wrong hands. Yeah but at that point, the damage is already done.

*Disclaimer*: This is completely OT. :music_whistling: Another thought that just popped into my head out of nowhere, i thought you might find that angle interesting: Spam accounts for a ridiculous amount of network traffic. Wikipedia states a study from 2007 that numbers the annual cost of spam in the US alone at $13 billion. That is a combination of ressources lost through the sheer network traffic that it generates, the energy that botnets use up to send that spam, there's a few other more complicated mechanisms that make it cost even more energy that i won't go into, then there's the manhours lost in people dealing with spam that could otherwise do productive things that generate wealth for society, etc. So even if you're not concerned about your data, a thing so seemingly inconsequential as a few million compromised email adresses has a significant environmental impact. Bottom line: Keep your computer safe, keep your data as secure as reasonably possible, you're actually doing something for the environment. :)

Are you really sure? The way i read that announcement, you just need an activated copy of BS2.

You should really read the thread if it interests you, at least the first part before it veered hopelessly OT. I find that the TLDR statements in here fail to capture what the people who oppose the move by nVidia rave about.

Yes, we have ventured a little OT.;)

Yes, clearly. If that's what you meant, than that's what you should have written. I'm not psychic, i can only interpret what you write. Suppose that's what you meant, is it preferrable to insult 7.2 billion people versus just me? That is a strange assessment. Quoted for truth.

Yes, because i fixed typos and added *one* sentence.

Wow, you still didn't watch the TED talk. If you still don't want to acknowledge that this is an issue that concerns society and not me as a single individual, then there's no point in further discussing this. I know it's your only argument, doesn't make it more valid. Which i am. Can i please have your permission to worry about other things too? Pretty please. Oh wow, this guy cares about IT sec, he must be a prototypical nerd. Well played sir. :doh: My life is neither sad, nor is it sorry or lonely, so let's leave it at that. The spoonfeeding gets a bit tiresome by now. I said my social network, that is, the people i interact with in my private/professional life. Something as benign as my adress book is enough to profile my social network (or my phone records). You don't need access to a social networking website (like facebook) to get that data, which was part of my argument. Not that there's a lot about me on any of them. Get your facts straight. I posted my edit well before your post appeared, the rest was typo fixing. May i also direct your attention at the irony of you demanding netiquette while posting ad hominem attacks? :)

Thanks for completely ignoring what i posted and jumping on the 'OMG you so paranoid' train. Like a baby, thanks for your concern. No, you wouldn't. Clearly you don't know any hackers. I neither have a social status nor the funds to make it worth anybodies while, and i indicated this in my last post, so yeah, thanks for stating the obvious. Wrong. Depending on where my data is parked together with other peoples data, there's a fair chance some of it will fall into hands that were not supposed to have it in the first place during the course of my lifetime. And even if it's just my email adress, why on gods earth do i now need to justify my opposition, even if the consequence is as measly as receiving one spam mail more per day? This is nuts. LOL, well who defines what is ordinary? If you have data on my social network, you can extract practically everything, my sexual orientation, what party i vote for, a statistic for my life expectancy, yeah, that's stuff that does not belong in the public domain, and before the advent of the internet, legislation in democratic countries tended to back this up. That is you have a constitutional right for some of your data to remain accessible to only a select few individuals. Ah man, what were those politicians of yesterday thinking? Give me a break and just watch the TED talk... But what if i suddenly do? Me and some other x% of the population for reason #whatsitsname. Why would i want to make it easier for the leading political party of a nation to root out anybody who (not even exclusively openly) opposes them? Please sell it to me, because right now that argument is dead in the water, even more so when you look at the data that enabled some terrorist attacks to be prevented. That was almost exclusively targeted surveillance, that is, espionage with tactics employed since at least the cold war, not mass surveillance. True, but there's data that if leaked causes irreparable damages to me. I don't care about bank accounts, they are as you correctly stated well insured against these kinds of attacks. Not all can be fixed with monetary reparation though. You still haven't watched that TED talk...

Well there's quite a few services that are potentially vulnerable, but i do take measure to make it reasonably hard for my computer to be compromised. If somebody wants in, he has to work for it, and i'm not an attractive target. Using open source software that is frequently reviewed by a large community and patched in a timely fashion will do that for you. If my data is aggregated together with millions of other users, well, that's a formidable target. You can generate serious revenue if you get your hands on that data (if you've got enough of them, selling email adresses pays off not too bad, and the adresses are just for starters). The more big companies that have my data aggregated, the more i am at risk that one of them gets compromised. Probability 101. None, the question is, how essential is their service to me and how big of a target are they. I can't guarantee it, but i can mitigate the risks by not restricting my walk to the most notorious bars and pissing off the locals (and Austria is quite safe to begin with :P). No. Do you walk up to the next guy that looks kinda shady and wiggle your wallet under his nose? Do you think that people using the seatbelts in their car live in paranoid fear of a car accident? The things i do i don't do because of some obstruse fear that something might happen. I work in IT and i know what can go wrong and i've seen it go wrong often enough. I also know a fair bit about what can and can't be done with my data (a small hint, if government agencies try to tell you that the data they routinely collect helps them fend off terrorist attacks, then they are full of it, it's simply a show of force to make you feel safe). The steps i take are neither incredibly obstructive to how i can make use of my computer or technology, nor are they outlandish. I follow trends and advice given out by industry professionals. The fact that you are simply unaware of the dangers doesn't make me a conspiracy nut. :doh: Yeah, that really deserves another facepalm. Those are not the only alternatives. nVidia don't have to collect our data, they just choose to (because people don't care). ;)

And how does that work exactly?