EtherealN

Btw: I love the "probably" part. Yeah. That is VERY probable. :megalol: (Btw, surely you mean "poisoning the well?" Though that is actually not quite applicable, this would be the association fallacy - which I admit that I, in my having fun here, has been guilty of.) What we are seeing here is a classic case of "evidence against the conspiracy is evidence FOR the conspiracy". That is, anytime anyone or anything speaks against the conspiracy theory, it is automatically a PART of the conspiracy. Thus refutation of the preferred conclusion becomes impossible, the preferred conclusion is invulnerable, and the offender has insulated themselves against having their view challenged. That is: the EXACT definition of having a "closed mind", which in my opinion is funny since these people often accuse everyone else (except themselves) of being closed-minded. Having an "open" mind tends to be defined as "always buying into the theory no matter what the facts say". :) Thus the conspiacy grows, and this is how I, a lowly forum moderator, managed to get my million dollar check from the bilderbergers this month in defence of ridiculing the people that are tracking the truth! :) Seriously UCAS, I must thank you. Without people like you, I would not be able to milk Kissinger for his millions.

I've not been in this specific situation, but I've been in other very dangerous situations (including seeing another aircraft suddenly swish by head-on). Yes, there was butterflies and nerves; when I had landed. Because that's when I had time to think about what had just happened. :) Before that, I was too busy to get nervous. :)

No. It's called training. Pilots have it. :) First of all, note that he has a HUD. Second, the situation is this: 1) I no longer see where I'm going. 2) I throttle up. 3) Well, whatever, be back later. (Or use those 45m of extra fuel I'm legally required to hold towards diverting to a clear field.) (Yes, you don't even need to move the stick to solve the situation, just throttle up and then verify that yout TVV goes above the horizon on your HUD. Remember: do NOT fly your approach on stick. Use your throttle. :) )

I'm vastly bored in a hotel in Perm, so what can I say? :D Happy to have entertained. :D

That's the actual name of the body... You postulate that this is a group with world power that govern stuff like PRISM. If they're the bosses of PRISM, ECHELON etcetera... Wouldn't they have means to avoid it? Very simple, technologically, to implement. Thatcher: She was invited when she became leader of the opposition in one of the world's largest powers. Hm... They're inviting now the leader of the opposition in SWEDEN. If being opposition leader in sweden merits invite (and they did the same for the previous one, and she remarkably failed to win last time...), imagine what being opposition leader of the UK means. Causation vs Correlation again: someone has a rising star, they invite her. And then you sort away everyone that doesn't fit your preconceived notion. When I asked for data, I meant REAL data. That is: I want you to defend your postulation that this meeting creates "winners" through checking everyone. Oh, right, none of your Bilderberg fruitcakes ever did that! :) Clinton, same. Tony Blair: Somehow there was a major delay after his invite. Hmm. Come on now, REAL evidence. Not cherrypicked (and even then bad) favorites. Give me a real analysis where you check Bilderberg invitations against political success. Please don't verify my own prejudices about conspiracy fruits through not already having this data. It was your postulation, remember! Wha? Actually, just read my previous. The answer is in there, and explicitly stated. To take your own logic: The GDC is therefore a conspiracy where the entire gaming industry is rigged, because the powers that be meet there (and EXCLUDE intruders! OMGWTF! INTRUDERS NOT ALLOWED? CONSPIRACY!!! (And aliens.)). Seriously? First, to say this, you have obviously already been present at said meetings. This insider information of yours clearly demonstrates that you are a shill for the Bilderbergers, executing a double-bluff where your job is to maintain my view that nothing is amiss, through making opposition to the conspiracist claims seem silly. :) Evidence against the conspiracy is evidence of the conspiracy - it just got larger. So you are now a bilderberger. Cool! But since I'm also a shill, I guess I'll meet you there next time. :) And no, you don't need ulterior motives to have a steering committee. All you need to require a steering committee is... to have a meeting to arrange. What, you thought conventions magically arrange themselves? No, they don't, they need people to organize them. Like the GDC, E3, music festials or whatever else. Why would this be magically different, except to confirm your preconceived notions in pursuit of your conspiracy theory? So politicians and business leaders should be legally prevented from meeting each other? Let me ask you: if they already sorted this out, why does business spend billions on DC lobbying? Didn't think about that? :) No, they're meeting about exactly the same things threy themseles are publically telling us they're meeting about: they discuss things that are important on the large scale of poltics and economics and exchange ideas. You know, like how game devs and publishers do when they attend GDC. That is a moving goalpost right there, which is dishonest. You just claimed, with surety and no qualifiers, that it was a meeting with OBAMA that caused PRISM. But did you not spend some time to actually read up on PRISM first? No. You just saw the correlation of the exposure of the program, assumed the shortest connection that fit with what you had already decided, and when this was refuted you just jumped somewhere else with a new assumption rather than go "oh wtf, how did I end up getting that wrong?" Doesn't work like that. This is where you should have gone "hm... wow... I need to check my facts before I open my mouth in future." Non-sequitur: I haven't even mentioned political donations, yet you are already assuming my position on that. And again: we don't do politics on this forum. (As an aside, I live in a country where poltical donations are extremely rare: parties are funded from taxes according to their polling results.) As for whether them meeting is a good thing: it's both. Same way devs and publishers is both good and bad: in some cases it makes sure good concepts get backing, in other cases it means shortsighted dollarhunting on publisher's part kill good ideas. Mixed bag. But that is "REALITY". It's not "devs and publishers meeting to make sure everyone gets crap games". Yup. Why? Basic logic. When you postulate a hypothesis, YOU need to defend it. But that's not what you're doing. You are postulating a hypothesis and stating that unless someone can disprove it, it is true. Well, fine. Disprove the celestial teapot, in orbit around neptune, that authored all of Metallica's music. If you can't... Well, I guess the teapot did it! :D

Eh, what? Seriously, your post does not make sense.

Nah. In contrast to people like Alex Jones and Bhorgezio, in order to sneak in you have to make sure you are not conspiquous. Thus: you need to not be well known to the participants, and you need to not raise eyebrows through toting cameras around. (And of course, have luck with the selected venue. No, you won't get into the meeting halls, like Bhorgezio tried.) Here's the point though: what is the difference between this and sneaking in to something like the GDC? None. The "core group" is the steering commitee, which is gradually changed just like analogus for all other conferences in all other industries. The only difference is that these are people with power. If they want to conspire, they don't need a convention. They can do that easily anyhow, if they want to. And they certainly don't need to make public publication of attendee lists and meeting topics... which they do. Now, how about you show me an analysis of Bilderberg attendance vs "rising"? These are powerful people doing a conference with similar people, quite normal. Now who would they invite as "new"? People that have no relevance? Why would they do that? OF COURSE they are interested in people whose stars are waxing. That's the point. But if you want to tell me that correlation equals causality, bring it. :) Oh, and where did I say that? :) Source? Especially curious since PRISM has been in effect since 2007. Oh, where did I say this? Hm. That's some exquisite powers of extrapolation you've got there. :) Some of your more immediate errors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc And btw, I'm not interested in a discussion about Kissinger and war crimes, since that'll end up in politics and we do not allow politics on this forum. But I'll note that he actually isn't very common there... Yes, last decade he got selected to the steering committee and thus has been a usual "guest" in the last few years. But before 2008, the last time he was there was actually before I was born. Seriously, give the conspiracy theories a rest. Bilderberg conspiracy crap isn't even as funny as the UFO nuts. (Though to be fair, the UFO nuts are hard to beat. :D )

I hope so too. There are some technical hurdles but it is planned. Can't say when though. :(

You don't need to contact us. You just need to start using it yourself. After a key is unlinked, it automatically links to the next account that uses it. Which would then be yours.

He unlinks it through the page I linked previously. He gives the serial number to you (MSN, skype, Email, paper etcetera). You use it. It's now yours.

Pretty much. After purchase, unbind the serial through that page. (And of course, make sure you don't unbind the serial you are yourself using.) Then simply send the serial number to your friend, who should have a DCS Account, and instruct him to activate using this and then log into multiplayer with it using his DCS Account. This will then cause the currently unbound serial number to become reassigned to his DCS account. NOTE: he should make sure to use only one single DCS Account for all modules.

Actually, yes. I know people that have done it. You know what the secret is? Don't come bearing demonstration signs and being conspicuous. Dress in a good suit (if male) or dress (if female, I guess, I don't know a female that has done it personally), then simply walk in by a side route. It's about as easy as when sneaking into a music festival. ;) Sometimes (though not always) they rent facilities that don't even have a fence... As for the piece you linked: they're not a "group". Different people get invited every year, though of course there is a core group of the most powerful that are "regulars". This stuff is about as weird as when your local college fraternity stages a party for people of their own "class". But of course, yes, in the case of conspiracy-heads, nothing will ever convince them of the contrary since their minds are shut into a cycle of hyperactive pattern-seeking. Basic psychology 101 there. (But I mean, wow, they have LONG tentacles those guys, seeing so far as to even pay off ME! :D )

You can unlink the purchase ( http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/myserials.php ), allowing your friend to get that key associated to their account.

Minor correction: 10 activations and 8 deactivations. When the last activation is spent, 30day timer starts and then you get it back.

No need to fly. Step 1: Look at mission editor map. Step 2: Find one of many tunnels. Step 3: Place a unit next to it and check it out. :P If you're having problems finding tunnels, try the mountains. :P

First reaction: LOL. Second reaction: [citation needed] Third reaction: So the UFO nuts (aside from not understanding what the "U" stands for) first spend their time saying government officials are liars, but then automatically accept a gov person when they say something they like. (And btw, i was a LONG time since this dude was in cabinet.) Fourth reaction: Ah, we got the complete tirade about Bilderbergers etcetera. So he's a lunatic. Tip: there's nothing secret about the Bilderbergers. You can easily sneak in, and many people have done so. Just that when they're not Alex Jones-type-lunatics with a commercial slot to sell, they always seem to find it unremarkable. But I guess they're part of the conspiracy. :) Seriously, if you take this seriously in any way, you need a course in basic critical thinking.

I agree. :D

I think you missed the point that there is NOTHING that says the UCAV in question is a MODULE... Right? :) The very thing I was highlighting was that it's a bit weird to assume that everything that gets a model or gets introduced into the game is automagically a "module". It isn't. It's something that's getting added to the World platform.

Since you didnt include specification of the problem I have to guess, but see this sticky: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94531

Not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you certain that you fully understand what the scan zone indicators mean? And of course, depending on situation, some targets will be invisible anyhow - more on that later. Illuminators will not decoy IR missiles. Different spectrum of activity. (By definition, IR missiles work in the IR spectrum, while illumination flare work in the visible spectrum. Yes, the illuminators will still emit in IR as well, but in such a way that modern IR missiles will immediately reject them as false.) But FC2... Unfortunately too long since I played it to remember how it is modeled there. Optimally older IR missiles should go for them (well, at least the REALLY old ones), but newer ones shouldn't. I think. Not my field of expertise so I may be wrong. No. When you fire, you switch from one Mav to another. The TV image comes from the seeker on the Mav you are about to fire, and once it's off the rail you're no longer in communication with it. Most likely a case of incomplete modeling of systems, but that's the way it is in FC2. Compare to A-10C for example, where this is easier to handle. This is a HUGE topic. Against radar missiles, you want to exploit the Pulse Doppler Notch. Basically, most modern aircraft radars use a pulse doppler design, meaning that they use doppler return to discriminate between "background" and "target". To defeat these missiles, you typically want to make yourself part of the "background". To do this, you need to be at lower altitude than the shooter (if the shooter is a SAM - tough luck), so that his radar picture includes ground. Then you need to make your doppler return equal that of the ground in his radar picture. You do this through flying perpendicular to his emitter (basically, place him at 3 or 9 o'clock). If you do this well enough, his radar will see you returning the same signal as the ground that is on the other side of you in his field of view, and you will be "rejected" as "clutter". Note that if the enemy missile is active, you need to "3-9" the _missile_, not the shooter. If the missile is semi-active, you 3-9 the shooter. Search the forum for discussions about "cranking" and "notching" and you'll find more details. Extremely situational, can you give some example situations? Theoretically yes, but you need to realize that range is not the important factor. Energy is - that is, your energy (and ability to spend it) and the missile's energy. What you want to do against a missile that you cannot notch is to make it spend lots of energy through constant maneuvers. For example, if a SAM fires at you, start making manuvers - don't have to be drastic (remember, you must keep your energy too!) - and this will cause the missile to maneuver. But you have engines, the missile doesn't (after the first few seconds of flight). I made a video ages ago to demonstrate something else, but it shows some of this too: Make sure to "walk" the CCIP pipper over the target. That is, you must not be imparting any control forces at release - these forces will also affect the weapon(s) you are releasing, and cause you to miss. Place yourself such that you are flying at 1G ("straight", though not necessarily "level" of coutse), and then pickle your weapon(s) as the CCIP indicator "walks" over the target. Depends way too much on circumstances and type of damage, unfortunately. Sometimes the best option is to simply eject...

The human eye (well, technically, it's more the brain) sometimes reacts more strongly to changes than constants*. This means that FPS that varies between 40 and 80 will look less fluid than a steady 30. Yes, forget the FPS cult. ;) (*EDIT: I recently read a research paper that indicated that there was actually an IQ component here as well, where our ability to find patterns and changes of an "intellectual" nature would also make us "ignorant" of large-scale patterns and changes. I'm not a neuroscientist, so I won't extrapolate too much, but just make the point that all our brains work slightly differently, so it should be expected that some of us are more sensitive to the changes in FPS while others might be more sensitive to the constant. As for who might be correlated to which IQ quartile... I don't know wnough about the field to even try, though since I react stronger to changes in FPS than constant, and do know my IQ, I might be predisposed to a specific interpretation - but that would be my own confirmation bias where I actually could just be an exception :P )

This can happen when the local system gets a bit confused by the registry. It then asks for a check, and as a part of this it collects a hardware hash on your computer (basically "converting" your hardware components to a hashcode profile). When you then transmit, it checks with the server and finds that your key is already registered with that hashcode (or one similar enough) and says "oh oops, sorry, didn't need to active" pretty much. (Note: hardware hashcode doesn't mean the server will know what your computer has or anything like that, it's a purely mathematical operation similar to dual-key encryption techniques where being able to "decipher" doesn't mean you are able to "cipher". The harware profile is served by the OS itself with a simple request that the system has no control over - this is why OS reinstall can make your system look "new" even if it is physically the same computer. One of thedrawbacks of not having more aggressive deep-level protection with drivers, but this is an option ED decided to abstain from out of respect for customer privacy.)

I know. The thing is that he's doing a count affected by confirmation bias. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ) Case in point: Matt releases some WIP pics of an american UCAV. He (Pepin) goes on to make wild assumptions about it's status as a future "module", counting "modules" made for the several sides, links to a thread where he mentions the new MiG-31 model - but why didn't he make the same assumption when the MiG-31 model was deployed to DCS World? Similarly, he gets upset when "blue" gets a new vehicle model, due to his bias, but ignores when "red" gets a new model (Tunguskas and several other vehicles) or new unit (T90 and others). Basically, he made an argument based on an incomplete survey of the data, the same way he does when he complains about the "gimping" of the russian missiles in other threads - not realizing that ALL missiles suffer the same problems because he doesn't even test that properly. That is my point. :) First of all, no, he was talking about ED products. The Huey is not an ED product. That's Belsimtek. ;) So it's not 3-1, it's 2-1. (And while 1-2 might have made him happy, it would instead be someone else complaining about how ED favoritizes red because it's a russian company... :P ) Further, red birds are in the pipeline, including the Flanker, from ED. Second, if you want to add 3rd party high-fidelity modules, like the Huey, remember to add the Mi-8 from Belsimtek and MiG-21bis from Studio Beczl as well! You are seeing a list from those 3rd parties that have chosen to make their projects known. It is 100% up to them to decide when they want to do this. Take a moment to think about how long Belsimtek was working in order to have the Huey out already, and cease the assumption that you know everything that is in the pipeline, both from ED and from 3rd parties. :) Consider: the Belsimtek Mi-8 must have been in development for a while when they already have pictures to share, right? Yet it was only very recently announced to be in existance. At the same time, how many pictures have you seen of the mentioned F-22? There is a cultural difference in play about when you announce (and show) your project. From a pure business and competition standpoint, it is my personal opinion (note: not the opinion of ED, ED doesn't care there - it's the business of the partner in question) that the "blues" have been a bit too quick with announcements there, straining their ability to maintain interest between announcement and being able to "show" something real. At the same time, the notion of being upset at being shown some early-work model pics, and then referring to projects that don't even have THAT... is weird, imo. ;) EDIT: Btw, unless I misrecall, you might be interested to know that the Mi-24 has been mentioned in the DCS World overview video Matt made months ago. I haven't seen it myself (not that I would have unless it's relatively close to completion anyhow), but considering it's mention in your list of "why's" I thought this might be interesting. Indeed, the first screens of WIP Mi24 cockpits that got out are many years old. (There's also pics of AH-64A btw, if i remember correctly.)

Thanks Skate! And totally agreed with Cichlidfan. This habit people have of spending wads of cash on their computers and then getting budgety on power supplies is silly. After mobo and CPU, the power supply is the most important component in a build, IMO.

Whenever discussing things like this, I keep thinking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Hotarubi, if you find a "pilot" that will talk to you about ECM and ECCM, you can be roughly 100% sure he is talking crap. Why? Because most countries have severe penalties, often going all the way up to life imprisonment (and some countries even include the death penalty) for disseminating real information about these systems. ;) So if he talks: he's not real. Or at least, what he says is not real. At best it'll be whatever is declassified since it ceased being used in like the 70's... ;) (But often, even those things remain classified, since current technology might be evolutions of the older tech.)