EtherealN

Using non-newtonian methods to get to space isn't evolution. It's absolutely total revolution. There are mathematically sound ways of doing it - an alqubioerre drive for example (aka "warp drive"). The problems with that are however quite spectacular both in amount of energy needed (to initiate the warp you might need the equivalent of Jupiter converted into energy, and whatever is inside the warp field - including the drive itself - will get roughly as hot as the big bang itself as a result... non-trivial material science question right there :P ). Can you tell me any even remotely feasible "non-newtonian" method for going to space? Which was why they used optical navigation for most of it. ;) In actual fact, they still do. New Horizons routinely takes pictures of starfields to verify it's location. First of all, people didn't think the earth was flat. Eratostenes calculated the circumference of the earth in the 3rd century BC. Second, that heavier-than-air objects cannot fly was never a widely held opinion, especially not amongst scientists. Because it has been known that heavier-than-air objects can fly since the stone age - birds. The sound barrier was a colloquialism, very few people thought it was an actual barrier (noticeable through the fact that they actively tried to overcome it). The sound barrier was an engineering barrier that was meant to be overcome. Again, please give me a remotely feasible alternative. I strongly suspect that you are a bit short on your physics classes in school. But of course, going to school and learning this stuff only means you get limited through indoctrination, right? ;) But it is funny how you talk about "indoctrination"; you spoke previously about "open minds", but in your world anyone that does not agree with your completely revolutionary concept is just "indoctrinated". That is in diametric opposition to "openmindedness". You make a lot of interesting assumptions there. Like me watching TV (lol! that only happens in hotels, I haven't owned a TV in years, and even then it was only there for the Xbox) and reading "mainstream media" (which are actually only about as good at reporting science as is Alex Joens - that is, they get it all wrong all the time. :P ) Oh my... No. Dude, if you want to claim to overturn newtonian physics, perhaps you should start with learning how it works. For example the from newtonian laws of motion: Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Remember that one? ORBIT is when this pull from gravity is equaled by the curvature of the earth, meaning that as you fall towards the ground, the earth equally curves away under you due to your forward momentum. Seriously, you really should consider getting yourself some elementary grasp of this stuff before you try to refute it. The reason why satellite orbits decay is that they are, technically, still in an atmosphere. A rediculously rarefied one, but there's still "air" up there, which causes drag. You've probably heard of the words Troposphere and Stratosphere, right? Well, above the Stratosphere (12 to 50km) you have the Mesosphere (50 to 80km), and then after that you get the Thermosphere which extends to very very high up. (Depending on factors it can go up to 800km altitude, which I shall remind you is higher than the ISS, the space shuttle, and quite a few satellites.) ISS and the others experience atmospheric drag just like an aircraft does. Just a lot less of it, meaning that little adjustments tend to be necessary. However, one of the bigger reasons they want to bring some fuel along up is that the earth's gravity is actually not uniform, and there are effects from the moon and tides which after a long enough time does become significant. Not to forget things like being able to maneuver out of the way of debris. But make no mistake: if you are in an orbit around a single body with no atmosphere, you will not get "dragged down to the ground". That is actually what orbit is! Not getting dragged down because your forward momentum compensates to let you follow the curvature of the body you are in orbit around. Quite elementary. There has been plenty of quite spectacularly powerful nuclear explosions already, and we don't find ourselves in such a need. For example, behold the glory of a ~50 Megatonne airburst. No, it really wouldn't. Dr. Bowman was not head of the Star Wars programme. He left the administration before that program, and was a vocal critic of it. At the time he ran his own little thinktank, funded by writing books. But of course, wouldn't be the first time people in those circles make false claims about their credentials in order to sucker the gullible into taking their word as gospel. Seriously dude, what you need to do is to stop trawling the interwebs for conspiracy nut website and videos, and take some time off where you go to learn actual physics. You'll find that it is a very fascinating subject to learn. Your statements here have shown very well that you don't understand the topic even at a basic level. (But I guess that's the point, right? Through not having been tempted into "indoctrination" your mind is unsullied by the manipulation of the Reptilian overlords or whatever... Or perhaps you have at least not falled to the David Icke level yet?)

Additionally, during the "space race" the nature of the competition meant that they happily accepted way greater risks. The Apollo astronauts were lucky not to get fried by radiation outbursts from the sun, for example - understanding of the risk was rudimentary at best, and analysis tools to predict them was pretty much nil. And the lander module was rickety as heck; a mistake with a pencil could open a hole to space... Without the spectre of "cold war", such risks simply aren't acceptable to people in general. Hell, look at what happens nowadays whenever a new fighter jet crashes; people immediately shout about how it's being "rushed" and is "unsafe" etcetera - forgetting that the safety record of our new fighters, compared to similar programs in the 50's, 60's and 70's, is absolutely stellar. ONLY some 4-6 crashes? Back in the day you could have that per year, easily. :P But of course, as far as space goes, the big deal that has happened is that humans are now fairly redundant. We can send quite capable robots at a fraction of the cost, with no risk to human lives, and get MORE science done at the same time. Now, if Russia, Europe, China, Japan, India and the US were to suddenly ditch those pesky safety aspirations and go full-steam-ahead on a new space race... We'd have people on Mars quite soon indeed. It would just have cost a lot more money, and quite a few lives. :P

To be precise though, this isn't an advantage of having two engines. Larger jets tend to have two engines, so correlationally true, but the causative relationship here is size/weight vs that of the weapons. Also note that the comparison is flawed; it might not be enough with just the one droptank on the bigger jets, since it'll drink more fuel to begin with. (But on the other hand, it also might not need any droptank at all in case it just "naturally" has range enough for what is required in the mission.) For these kinds of things it is necessary to compare specific aircraft versions with each other, it cannot be extended to single vs dual engine. These things are complicated. :)

Staying in orbit without fuel and thrusters is pretty easy. Just need to not be in LEO where there still is comparatively a lot of atmosphere. Anyway, yeah, they were investigation - amongst many things - ways to generate power through having a conductive cable extending through a differential. This is not weird in any way. The actual problem is this though: having electricity does not mean you get thrust. Well, I guess, what you could do is rig a HUGE set of lights and propel yourself through the momentum of expelled photons, but protip: using any materials we even remotely know of, you might as well just "get out and push". Or use something that works, like an ion drive, the upcoming vasimirs, etcetera etcetera. And then be happy about the electricity you collected since you can use it to power - for example - the magnetic fields used in the ion drive, and your in-spaceship entertainment station. The UFO-style stuff is just silly. Overactive pattern seeking combined with an out-of-focus video. The same thing people have for ghosts, aliens and all such kinds of things.

"You should have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out." - Unknown Having an "open mind" is just tinfoilspeak for being credulous. What you should have is an active mind, one that doesn't just accept random bull it encounters. First, why do you even assume there should be another way "to get to space" by now? Second, your description is rigged; you are trying to make it sound like no development has occurred in the intervening time. Which is, as you know, quite false since - for example - you're reading this on a computer. They've been used for all sorts of fun stuff, including spaceflight. However, the thing with spaceflight is that "getting to space" is a very big deal, purely physically speaking. You need a lot of energy to get out of this deep an energy well, and to top it off you have to fight the atmosphere while en route. (Try Kerbal Space Program with the Realistic Earth modification and you'll get yourself an idea.) There has, in actual fact, been quite a few innovations on how to get into space; the basic method for a space elevator exists (just waiting for someone to invent strong enough materials, and how to regulate it's safety is a massive political question since that cable, if snappet, can slam down three laps around the earth...), explosive nuclear propulsion is just an engineering question (but good luck getting political and public support for THAT), nuclear reactors powering the energizing of propellant gases same thing (people get nervous at nuklear stuff, even though this one at least doesn't involve nuclear explosions), etcetera etcetera. But of course, you'll say "but those are still rockets!" (The explosive nuclear isn't, neither the elevator, but nevermind.) Yeah. They are. You know why?`PHYSICS! To impart a momentum on something, you must expel something else in the other direction*; either a lot of stuff slowly (conventional, chemical rocket), or a lot of stuff pretty quick (nuclear rocket), or a little stuff extremely quick (ion drive). Basically, you know, mass * speed, equal and opposite, etcetera etcetera. The same principle you have with pretty much all non-friction propulsion, including jet engines and propellers. However, I would point out that there's as much difference between a scramjet as there is between a propeller and a turbofan. There's a lot more nuances in the developments and technologies of this and related fields that has happened than you let on. * Ignoring maglev and such effects; they've been looked at for getting things to orbit as well, but were considered impractical and requiring materials that are so far away from what we can imagine that we might as well start discussing an alqubierre drive. :P

[EDIT] Actually, the below serves well as response in full.[/EDIT]

As mentioned previously: in real-life, a rocket is not "a" weapon. When you have a rocket pod, you are not holding a Barret sniper/anti-materiel rifle. Under your hardpoint is an artillery battalion. Rockets are an area-effect weapon, you let loose salvoes the same way artillery doesn't fire just one shell (well, until the Swedish/American Excalibur). This is important in the definition of an area-effect weapon here: you are affecting the area, not any specific individual in it. Typically you will have been asked to suppress an enemy position - that is: "make them stop shoot" - either because they're threatening your mates, or because your mates want room to maneuver in order to get up close to their position. Part of the problem in "proper" effect of rockets is that a big part of their job isn't necessarily to kill. It's the same as artillery: make that bad guy keep his head down; make him choose between firing his weapon and staying alive. That said, it would be absolutely awesome if we could have Close Combat-style morale behaviour of soldiers in DCS, complete with trenches, foxholes, ditches etcetera. (And imagine a Combined Arms that has Close Combat style trooper detail... oh mommah! :D ) I'll try to arrange that for you tomorrow, remind me otherwise. Rockets are actually what I usually use against those guys, to good effect. ;)

Not necessarily. I don't know exactly how the code works, but I would suspect that rockets and bombs call the same function(s). Fix one, break the other. Unless you do it over, redoing the relevant functions to account for all different types of weapons and their relevant effects. Yes, you could fork out the functions(s) in question for a temporary "fix", but then later when you go through the code to do the whole thing properly you're stuck with tonnes of impromptu code to un-fix before you can proper-fix the real issue. And if the relevant coder has, for whatever reason, left the company when that happens, the new guy will be sitting there with a web of code that has no real logic to it because it's all just quick-fixes... Basically, there's a lot of things in program design that are "easy" if you start with a clean slate, but way hard when you're working on an extant codebase. You need to be really careful what you do in those cases. (See for example the parable of Janes A-10 and the issues they had with various code because there was no structured design to it and "new guys" had to pick up code from people that had since left Janes.) Basically: yes, this might be possible. But without having the code right in front of you, it is dangerous to assume that something is simple. When dealing with tens of thousands of lines of code - or, in the case of DCS, a couple million - even simple things can be difficult unless you approach it correctly.

Hahah, yeah, no more automatic astronauts... :P But we do get proper allowances for fastshooter tactics now, which is good.

Your mistake is that you are looking at only one variable. Between FC2 and FC3, missile flight model was completely replaced with what can be called an AFM. One of the effects was that a previously hardcoded "speed limit" could be exceeded, but this does NOT mean they necessasrily reach longer. It all depends. Because while top speeds may have changed, so did drag behaviour. For example, in FC1/FC2, there effectively was no drag while the missile motor was active. (Limitation of missile SFM.) It's a completely replaced flight model, so don't just look at one single variable. Basically, with FC3, missile tuning had to start over since the new FM changed everything. While the correct tuning is being chased, most missiles have had their own moments of "bad" performance, especially in cases where new FM behaviour interacts with seeker behaviour.

This is not Formula 1... :P

Longest range ever? The F-15C fanboys will have you now. :P I'll start the countdown. :) But on a more relevant point: the "problem" is that the Aim-120 doesn't just "loft". They do all sorts of funky optimization stuff with waypointing, MCCs etcetera. But obviously, the big problem lies right there: we know it "does stuff". But as for what stuff exactly? Yeah... Anyone in the know that told ED would probably find themselves answering to espionage or treason charges. :P

For the first issue, please collect a track file through selecting to "save track" after flight. Please make this flight only showing the issue (to avoid having to wait to see the issue unecessarily). For X-52 programming, please note that in the Saitek Profiler you must make sure the keys are associated as simultaneous presses, not sequential.

Have you tried moving the installation files to hard drive, from the CD? It might be as simple as the CD being damaged, and copying it to disc might be able to expose this fact. Also, have you tried running the setup in Windows XP compatibility mode? (Note: I mean the setup, not the autorun!) You can do this by right-clicking the setup.exe on the disc.

External SSD seems like a silly idea; any advantages of it being an SSD is liable to get negated by interface-imposed latencies and bottlenecks. (Not constantly or by necessity, but seems to me to be unecessarily exposing yourself to issues that might arise in certain usercases and cause inexplicable performance degradation at unpredictable times.) Generally, simply uninstall the game, install on your new HDD, resume gameplay. Your savedgames, configurations etcetera are saved in the Windows SavedGames folder, so you will not lose these. Some user mods might be lost and require reinstallation, if you use them and depending on their method of application. Don't worry about the 26GB number. Wait for release before you do anything grand to your setup, imo.

Could you please inform what your operating system is to give advice, as well as information regarding which install media you are using. You might also be able to get some information through attempting the install, and then running Windows Event Viewer (Start > Search > Event Viewer; note that it might be named differently if you are using a non-english version of Windows) and see if there are any messages in this log about what happened.

If you wish to obtain a refund (a "return" doesn't quite apply for a digital product), you should do this: 1) Create a support ticket explaining the issue(s) you have experienced, and request refund in there. 2) We'll try to solve the problem for you first. If this is not possible, you get your refund. If you describe your issue here, I would be able to give better advice.

I hate the vertical mouse. I had a case of RSI a while back (too much starcraft), solved it through using a steel brace for a month (was like 20 dollars at the chemist), replacing my ambi mouse for one with proper supports, and fixing my posture. If there is actual pain involved even when not using the computer, definitely consider having it checked by a doctor - permanent nerve damage is a real concern.

But the probabilities in real life are not a D20. They are physics.

You misunderstand my point, sorry if I was imprecise: What I mean is that what might be an easy implementation on one codebase might be a hack on another; it depends on what you are working with. (The whole thing with good coding practices, avoiding the literal definition of a "hack".) What I mean is that there might be code here that dates - at least in part - back to the LO days. This is code that is being continually phased out - sound engine is already replaced, graphics is on the way, so on and forth. As a possible example of what I mean (though note that I have no code access, this is speculation); right now a LOT of stuff is done with LUA, which in part is a problem since it forces single-thread operation on a lot of things that might benefit from multithread operation. It could feasibly be that there exists a codebase where this is already implemented (or planned to be implemented) that replaces the current LUA infrastructure (that currently handles a lot of stuff for weapons, AI etcetera). This means that even if it is a year or two away, it would still be a duplication of effort in both engineering, coding and testing to implement on the current codebase that would then just be lost. I'm sure there are many other possible scenarios for stuff like this, but just to illustrate the point. EDIT: there might be an additional issue here, but I want to make it really clear that I have no special knowledge on this - this is NOT an ED opinion, it's not even close to my field; the LUA stuff is awesome for a lot of things, since it for example allows military clients to code sensitive stuff themselves - for example performance of secret weapons and systems. (Otherwise imagine how realistic it would be for a Russian company to develop a DTS for USAF A-10C pilots...) Due to the crosstalk between those markets as far as the codebase goes... there might be all kinds of issues neither of us will understand without seeing the code itself. Basically: it's most likely complicated in ways neither of us understand.

But that is not what at least I have said. What I have questioned is whether a hack today is better than a proper implementation tomorrow. That is something none of us can answer to, except through taking hints from that the devs haven't yet implemented it. No matter what one might think, the devs actually do look at things like this and evaluate gains versus cost (both time and money, which really are the same thing). It is however very possible that the reason they haven't done it is something we haven't even considered - say, perhaps they already have a prototype engine/system/chocolate factory that does this and more already running at prototype stages, but it's not yet ready for deployment. (Hacking the feature into the current code would then obviously be a bad expenditure of resources. You don't repaint your house right before you rebuild the walls.) That's the thing though - no-one that has spoken in this thread has any way of knowing whether we are looking at 5 years, 10 years, or 1 year. Some of us would probably know if it was within a couple months to perhaps 6 months - those of us who are testers - but unfortunately we would not be able to say so. It is important to remember that devs are not demons. They usually have reasons for what they do, and for what they do not do. I would appreciate it if, when we discuss things like this, we assume that the devs have good reason for why Feature X isn't present yet.

While I agree that they can definitely be made well enough for our purposes (at least in theory, practical stuff might happen but I don't have source code access nor understanding to analyze that), RPG's are a bit coarse in their randomization needs.

Yeah, but that removes the definition from useability. Example of deterministic randomziation: XCOM gets a seed each turn, and during that turn all randomization is done from that seed. This means that you gain nothing from re-doing the same action from a savegame several times to try getting a different result. (You can however get a difference from loading from a previous turn and retrying the action after having replayed.) In the context, you would essentially want to ensure that all clients (and server) are "randomizing" from the same seed at all times, rather than each doing it from a locally derived one. (For example, some randomization methods derive seeds from system clock and such things, which would not be reliable in an MP context where we want clients to calculate effects.)

...except when someone ripples cluster bombs. :P I do see your argument, the problem is that is is a bit of a "hack"; that is, it works around a problem instead of solving the problem. This is something that developers are pretty allergic to since it tends to give a temporary solution to a problem but cause bigger issues further down the line. Sometimes the "hack" really is merited, but it's hard to say that without having both the actual code (and understanding it) as well as a clear picture of what is planned for the future. As an additional note: any solution, "hack" or not, must be able to run in MP, on the server, without issues. Client-side randomization is for example not an option; you're liable both to cheats and to desync issues where a given unit is killed on your client but the server (and everyone else) considers it alive. (There are aways around this though through using pseudorandomization; that is, it appears random, but the randomizer uses a deterministic model whereby the effect will be the same every time, but it will appear random to the user.)

But what would you prefer if you got to choose between doing it that way now (and letting it be like that for the foreseeable future), or waiting however long it might be (I have no clue) and then getting fragmentation done RIGHT where the listed issues would not occur. It's the whole "do it right or not at all" things, I guess, and we might have different preferences there. I've never been bothered by this issue, so for myself I'd rather wait. YMMV. :)