CE_Mikemonster

What level of flying is everyone at? I'd like to fly online but i'm sure i've learnt a lot of bad habits in SP (i.e lazy procedures and navigation). EDIT: Oh god, just saw this in the 'Latest Post' box. All you can see is; ':(Flying Alone..Looking For..' Hmmmmm

I'm sure it was only £33ish when I bought it, UNLUCKY! Nah, jokes aside it is a PIA, but most of us won't complain as we bought it so early. Can't you do any kind of 'swap'?

Now that is just blatantly for fitting to his dashboard.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/explosive-remnants-of-war-brochure-311201/$File/ICRC_002_0780.pdf "Between 1945 and 1981, for example, the armed forces of Poland cleared an estimated 88 million pieces of unexploded ordnance left from the Second World War. During that same period an estimated 4,094 civilians were killed and another 8,774 injured as a result of the unexploded ordnance (UXO) left in the national territory." "NATO forces made extensive use of cluster bombs during the conflict in Kosovo, beginning in early April 1999. NATO has confirmed that, in total, 1,392 cluster bombs containing 289,536 bomblets were targeted against 333 strike sites inside Kosovo." There's no such thing as a good war.

Came across this when looking for other stuff. An amazing thing is Dr.Google. Just thought some of you folks would enjoy having a read of it! http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=2233&filename=2213.pdf Part of the conclusion; "At present it would be foolhearty to attempt to engage an enemy helicopter with the 20mm or 7.62mm machine guns and attempt to obtain a hit using tracer burnout as a means of adjusting fire. Once the enemy aircraft was fired on, it would take appropriate maneuvers to prevent it from being hit. In addition, the Soviets can be expected to employ their aircraft in pairs, just as we do. The second aircraft, with adequate armament, could easily destroy any attacking helicopter. As a starting point; past tests and experiments should be used as a basis for the development of an air-to-air weapon system. The threat which provides the validity of needing the system has been validated several times in the past. The lengthy combat developments process should be shortened to field an effective air-to-air system in the near time frame. The answer is certainly not to go back to where we were ten years ago and start over." Feel free to discuss anything or post interesting quotes - i'll be listening! MM

Good question Manorca, I was wondering that myself. The closest I could come to was this, albeit not sure I searched very hard. Still, very interesting reading. http://www.books-on-line.com/bol/BookDisplay.cfm?BookNum=22364

DCS: A-10 .... In A.D. 2101 War was beginning. GG_Tharos: What happen ? Kenan: Somebody set up us the bomb. CE_Mikemonster: We get signal. GG_Tharos: What ! CE_Mikemonster: Main screen turn on. GG_Tharos: It's you !! 159th_Viper: How are you gentlemen !! 159th_Viper: All your base are belong to us. 159th_Viper: You are on the way to destruction. GG_Tharos: What you say !! 159th_Viper: You have no chance to survive make your time. 159th_Viper: Ha ha ha ha .... CE_Mikemonster: Captain !! * GG_Tharos: Take off every 'ZIG'!! GG_Tharos: You know what you doing. GG_Tharos: Move 'ZIG'. GG_Tharos: For great justice. DCS: A-10 IT'S A TARP!

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? http://www.itsatarp.com/

Oh, that sounds very pagan to me mate. Those pagans are always havinga good old shuffle. They invented Electronica about 1600 years before we did. The shame.

LMAO

lmao

Wow, beautiful! Very much appreciated, great pics! Thanks!

Aaah yes, and even if the technology was designed better to cope with the conditions, it is still a compromise compared to a version not needing the modification, size/weight/materials/simplicity/price/development time [that could have been used elsewhere or on upgrading the existing component].

Hahaha point taken.

Tornado would carry ALARM afaik, it has the loiter capacity too :)

Oh, some old religious thing.

Wtf? Is that a hitchiker??

Come to think of it where I live, further up north (Lake District) it's technically illegal to dance after midnight on a Saturday - reason being that there should be no dancing on the Sunday. Fighting seems fine though lol

Nobody noticed my pun :( Shame on you.

Not OT at all, good input Zembla. Sorry for going on, i'm up for being corrected. Just thought too much info is better than too little :) I think it's to do with CRT refresh times or something? Whilst it has no input lag or ghosting. Having looked up my panel type, the AU Optronics M240uw01 v3 (AU-M240UW01-V3), it appears it has a pixel response time of 16ms (from off > to on > to back off). So that's a response time of 8ms (off/on)? Turns out that 16ms is one refresh of a CRT apparently..? This is different from the Grey to Grey (GtoG) response time which is 6ms A good example of different ways of measuring it I suppose, I dunno which is relevant lol, i'm sure none are universal between the manufacturers..

If the mission was set in the dessert it would be a trifle hard to fly for the Ka-50 pilot!

Thought i'd add some stuff in case the article didn't cover it. Just a random consideration; HDCP. If you intend to use a PS3 with the monitor it needs to support HDCP. I'm no expert but Blu-Ray might also need HDCP support as well. HDCP is, AFAIK, simply a code that only allows the PS3 to output digitally to a decent device - i.e. they don't wan't you to be able plug via DVI into your 16" 2003 TN panel! Another consideration related to this is if a monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping (most cheap ones don't AFAIK). If a PS3 is used with mine, because the PS3 uses 1920x1080 the image will be stretched to fit the screen [1920x1200]. With 1:1 pixel mapping the display would instead show the correct dimensions with black bars at the top and bottom. When buying a monitor, it's the panel that displays the image. Quick explanation of panel types - at least 1 year old though, so ignore some references to figures such as response times. http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php Here's my monitor, just to give you an idea of where i'm coming from. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=151179 Quite self explanatory, but see here for the different LCD panels on the market, their types, and their specifications: http://lcdtech.no-ip.info/en/data/lcd.panels.in.monitors.htm (The panel used in my specific monitor is 'm240uw01 -V3' - not apparently on there.. I'll go digging.. Edit, yup it's a AU Optronics P-MVA) I'm saying this because manufacturers often will manufacture a monitor using several different types of panels, so it's a lottery sometimes if you want a certain type. Notice how FEW different panels there are for each screen size (consider the amount of monitors available!), especially 24" (see codes on right of the screen). There aren't many manufacturers of LCD panels. My monitor ships with 3x different panels in, it just depends on the batch. Dell also do it with at least one of their monitors, annoying though it can be. They will all have the same model number and barcode - it's only when you turn it on and look at the menu you can finally find out the serial number of the panel in it. For instance it's completely by chance with mine whether you get a P-MVA panel or a PVA panel etc. I wouldn't get too hung up on the panel type though - that's only half of the story. When you go into your local TV store and see the Demo TV's, the probability is that the same size screens are using the same panels as each other - there are very few brands that actually manufacture them. Anyway.. lol .. the 'other half' of the story is the contents behind the panel. The exact same panel can look dull from one manufacturer (for instance Sony), yet vibrant from another. The same panel in my monitor can be found on £400+ monitors, but mine has been built to a price. Aside from cheap (but satisfactory) build quality, and lack of inputs (one VGA, one DVI), the hardware powering the screen has been compromised. I wish I could compare my trusty Yuraku to the BenQ that charges loads for the same panel just to tell you what the difference REALLY is. IMO it wouldn't be worth the extra £200, but you never know. Another consideration, beware - manufacturers use 'overdrive' on some monitors. As far as i'm aware, this is basically overclocking the pixels, to make them respond faster. This comes at the price of lower colour quality and the risk of distorted images. AFAIK it's a compensation technology, monitors that use this are already playing catchup. Another thing is the brightness of the monitor. AFAIK, by upping the brightness, manufacturers can provide more vibrant images. This is great, however when you are staring at a PDF document for 2 hours learning to fly the Black Shark, it becomes very apparent that it isn't good for your eyes. When i'm surfing the net for a long time I turn my Brightness right down, so just be aware of this when comparing monitor stats. The lower the better (also in relation to other things obviously). IMO as far as resolution goes, bigger is better. If you're worried about text appearing very small (and it will do on 1900x1200), just put the DPI up. Like I said i've never really used a different size LCD screen, but once you 'get the bug' for high resolutions you'll wonder how you lived without it. Nothing happier than a big f**k off screen sitting on your desk :) On the other hand you might need a new graphics card, but on games like ArmA I just turned down the graphics and stayed in native resolution, and the game still looked better than the previous high settings on a small screen. Probably the worst written post i've ever posted. I'm sorry if i've been patronising in places but there's a helluva lot to take into consideration when buying a monitor, and talking about stuff just reminds you of even more. I'm probably incorrect on the finer parts of technology used, and I expect to be corrected, but at least there's some food for thought! It's not an interesting subject, hence the poor arrangement of my post, but I just want you to be happy with the end product which is why i've gone on and on and on and on.. .. I think the monitor is one thing that most people (including me) know the least about on their PC, and it's arguably the most important when playing games :) EDIT: Just rambling on.. No worries mate, just want you to be 100% happy when your package arrives! it's interesting that if you DID get the 26" CRT monitor for $45 off eBay it would probably perform better than a $500 LCD - but like you say you'd need to get a friend to help you move it to the computer room. Having read the review, on page one I have to disagree with some of his points but it all depends on personal preferences. I understand he isn't reviewing the monitors in terms of a gamer looking for performance - for other users ergonomics, ease of use and (uuuurghhh..) prettiness are more important. When looking at buying from the POV of a gamer (and not an image editor/regular user), I personally [no flaming!] would first and formost place picture quality at the top of my list. Such things as an adjustable stand are nice, but wall mounting is always an option, as well as simply placing the monitor stand on a block of wood to adjust height. The same applies to the Bright Blue power button (mine has it!). A post-it note with key-commands and an eBay shopping list sorted that out straight away. That was a great link to use as an overview, but i'm finding it hard to believe that there are so few good monitors on the market! Back when I bought mine it was this or the Dell2007WFP and Dell 2008WFP (or something) and an Acer I think that were worth buying (i.e. under £300 but not a TN). Having read that i'm promoting this monitor to a 7/10! I'm extremely happy with it! It seems to me though that the main market that uses large monitors (over 1600x) is the image processing industry, and for them correct colour reproduction and vibrancy is more important than pixel response times. It seems that TN has been upgraded to rival VA screens and is now 'acceptable' and as a result you can get a 24" TN screen for ~2.5x less money than a [more vibrant] VA (MVA, PVA). IPS at the time I looked was in the upper £400 range, and not an option! Possibly worth considering, as I mentioned, would be a TN panel built by a good, resputable company in 1920x1200 (24"). I'm solely basing this on presuming that a good TN monitor wouldn't be far off a low priced VA monitor in terms of colour reproduction, but would be better in terms of pixel response times (ghosting). I'm certainly no expert and it'd be extremely worth reading up on response times, dynamic response times, black to grey response times etc etc lol. Technology may well have improved and VA panels now able to match TN in this field, for all intents and purposes making TN redundant. Viewing angles wouldn't be good - if you watched a film on the TN you'd probably need to tilt the screen to face you in the vertical plane (but if you have a wall-mount or good stand that's no huge deal). I'm not sure what 'bells and whistles' you'd get with an expensive TN (like extra DVI inputs, USB ports, moveable/tilting/swivelling stands), but i'd expect none with a budget VA panel.

Hahaha good man.

Oh that sort of thing is very traditional over here in Britain. Good old Chester :)

The name's Dynamics, Eagle Dynamics (lol). Good news - look how many pages there are in the hard copy!