SNAFU

Hey, do not troll my troll-thread. :joystick: At least we are in the troll-sub-forum, where we belong... :helpsmilie:

Sounds great, actually I am just tinkering at a mulitplayer, dynamic scripted mission with such kind of setup. Will have to get me some sparetime available... 8)

Yes, the specifications cannot be met. That was the point. But be aware that such specifications in requests for proposals or tender procedures are sometimes that way. In the industry some companys define such specifications to keep their competitors busy and give them booby traps. The traders and business people do not read correctly and make proposals or bids, without asking the engineers. They spent time and waste money finding out, that the specifications are unclear or not to achieve. Then it is a case for the lawyers and it gets expensive... ;)

Wilco ;)

No engineers, physicains or mathematicians around here? I ll paint you a drawing tomorrow, DarkEagle, after then I ll give up too. ;)

I told you, only for bored mathematicians. ;)

No, I perfectly understand you. I made the same mistake at first. Its all about the specification. But now go back to the specifications and read what is written there, do not read, what you want to read and what you expect. ;) There is no way to betray the maths. Sure the plane will move and finally takeoff if the wheels turn even the opposite direction of the planes rolling direction and the threadmill in the same direction as the plane. It really doesnt matter in which way the wheels turn, but as soon as the plane moves, the wheels (not the plane) turn faster or slower than the threadmill - bang, quest conditions not obeyed - specifications not met, your company which had signed the contract to provide this plane and the threadmill lost millions of dollars... ;) The only way to takeoff and keep the condition of equal speed, would be to takeoff with loked wheels. ;) Your suggestion of freely turning wheels and threadmill is an assumption your logic/reason made, but it is not written in the specification. ;)

Hey, now image someone is dragging you over the threadmill, you just move you legs accordingly. Now you move along, now you move faster than the threadmill, but you are not allowed to, cause the conditions of the fittness centre stated: Do move at the same speed as the threadmill but opposite direction. ;)

Thinking the right direction. ;) Lets put the threadmill on a threadmill.... :thumbup:

No, DarkEagle, you ignore the condition that the speed of the wheels must be the same as the speed of the threadmill, but the opposite direction of turn. ;) Try it your self in the fittnes centre. As long as the condition is valid, that boths speeds are the same, the plane speed must be zero, thats simple maths. ;) Sure the thrust moves the plane, but as soon as the planes moves over the fixed threadmill, the wheels turn faster, than the threadmill, which does not comply with the conditions, stated in the quest. If you skip this condition, sure then, but no cheating, huh? ;) For example look at a gear with pinion and wheel of the same modulus and tooth number (here replacing the wheel and the threadmill). As soon as the wheel turns faster as the pinion, the shaft is moving and you have a planetory gear, but as long as the condition is given, both speeds are the same, the shafts wont move. ;)

No, but if the wheels speed the same as the threadmill, the plane won´t move, you could even tie a Apollorocket on the back and fire it. ;) Ok, I admit that is mathematical, but in the given conditions, it is not possible for the plane to move, theoretical. ;) Practical the threadmill would blow itself to the moon,trying to maintain the same speed as the wheels, which it will never be able to, because the plane will surly move, and therefore the wheels will turn faster than the threadmill, which it will try to compensate by speeding up to the infinite. ;) PS: The trap is the way the question is defined. At first you think, yepp it won t move, because you are used to cars, then you think about it and say, of course will it move and take off, but then this would break the general conditions and base of the question, wouldnt it? ;) So finally, the answer is, the plane will not move and therefore not takeoff.

I don´t know mythbuster, as stated, but I am sure mythbuster used other general conditions or broke the given conditions.:joystick: The plane will only move on the threadmill, if the wheels turn faster than the threadmill, but given the condition, that the speed of threadmill and wheels are always the same, so the planes speed must be zero. :smartass: Uwheel = Uthreadmill + (Planespeed / wheel diameter) The condition is Uwheel = Uthreadmill, this is only possible if Planespeed = 0, therefore the plane will not takeoff... :book::P

Ja, das habe ich schon verstanden, nur nicht wo der Fehler ist... ;) I am at office and the vids are blocked, so I cant answer on that one. But I say that under the given conditions, that the rotational speed of the wheels has to be the same as the treadmill`s surface speed, the plane must not move a bit, other wise the conditions are not obeyed. As soon as the plane moves, the wheels have the speed of the treadmill and additionally the speed of the plane, so the planes speed must be zero, to keep the conditions, or not?

What is not put correctly? Please give me a hint, english is not my mother tongue. ;)

Mmmh, I would say the thrust comes from the propeller or jet, not from the wheels, but lets hear some more opinions?

Well ok, lets say it is no vertical takeoff, propeller or jet, well I prefer propeller, but wheatever... You say it won´t takeoff, ok, not enough lift will be produced to takeoff, but why?

A small quest for the smara$$es of this forum... ;) An airplane is standing on 2km long treadmill, exactly as long and wide as a runway. The speed governor of the treadmill is setting the speed of the treadmill to the same, but opposite speed of the rotational speed of the airplane`s wheels, as soon as the wheels start turning. The airplanes tries to take off. What is happening? Will it take off under this circumstances? :pilotfly:

Ahoi Major, where is the General? ;) Cannot help you much, but concerning your issue 1: I looked hard and long for a solution of this and found none. I work around that problem by, letting the AI chopper hoover at that point, where it should stop and wait for a clear path, but slowing him down and giving him a loop. Then, when path is clear I set a trigger which deactivates the chooper in the loop, and activate a new one, starting at the same point. Takes a little more effort, especially if you have 4-5 hold ups in the way, but the Mission Editor does not have the option to set a AI waypoint to wait, also in 1.02. Regarding your issue 2: Cannot say I dont play SP, only for testign missions. ;) But I think you could assign the AI an ingress point, tell him to go there. This point could be where you just are. So you sperate, you move on, he stays behind. Do not know if that is what you are looking for?

If you like study-sims, Hearts of Iron Series is your best choice for strategy. Nothing compares to them on their level. ;) But if you like nice graphics and effects, you might be wrong there.

Ok, thanks for the hint Speed. ;) Already thought that dome at the launcher might be a radar device, but found no infor regarding that. I played Falcon 4.0 a lot, but never cared much which SAM got me. Sa-6 has little less range and less max. alt, I thought of that too, but have not tried yet. I will not move the samsides, which is a no-go after all the hours spent. Sa-10 looks promising. Maybe I try Sa-2. ;)

Hi Kite, The illumination rockets should be called S-80M, if I remember correctly and are available for the Ka-50 with patch 1.02. To your FPS: Black Shark and XP does not utilize your cores as Vista 64bit or Win7 does, so you will find a limitation there. BlackShark is most demanding on your CPU, so try to keep your CPU load for other software as low as possible. Set Water=1 in your *lua, (sorry cannot give you the direct name) furthermore I recomment to set down a few graphic gimmics, disable civ traffic, but if you search the forum you will find a lot of hint to tweak your system. Good luck with that. I for example have a Quad Core Q9445 2,6Ghz, 4 GBRam, Vista64bit, ATI 4850 1GBRam, 1066FSB and have on a map without action between 40-50FPS, with medium texture details, high visibility range, water=1, blur on, civ traffic off and a solution of 1280X1024.

I now set up a test again and recorded the track. Result: Sa11 still firing even without SR at ranges over 30km. My mission more or less based on the assumption that they won´t launch anymore after destroying the radar. Guess I have to work around that with triggers. Well, anyhow here´s the track and the setup miz. Sa11Test.trk Sa11withSR.miz

Well, I only placed a SR to the group of the SAMs. At two points I tested about 2 dozen times the attack on the SAM side with my Ka50. I destroyed the SR what triggered a bomber wing to bomb the rest of the SAM side. Well, the bombers on 8000m altitude were always shot down by the remaining launchers. Another szenario I used were to destroy the RADAR by aircraft launched cruise missiles (Kh-95 don´t know, TV guided long range) which worked. 2 out of 4 cruise missles got through the SAM side defence and destroyed the SR. Then I popped up with my Ka-50 to finish the launchers, but they still were active. I know that the Hawks do not operate anymore after destroying their RADARS, so I thought all RADAR guided SAMs would behave that way. Sorry have no track here, next time I test, I will provide one. ;) Just wanted to ask if someone experienced the same with the Sa-11 Buk system.

Looks great for a peace time flight. ;) Now ED needs to implement a BlackOut of cities if any military ground units around, to simulate a combat zone. 8)

I am looking for a russian SAM system, which consists of medium to long range RADAR guided SAMs so I put up 6 Sa-11 launchers and one Sa-11 Radar, with command vehicle, trucks and all that stuff. (Found some info here:http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1690&catid=264 ) I was hoping the side would be disabled after destroying the RADAR vehicle, but the SAM launchers were not impressed at all and kept on launching their missiles. I used DCS:BS 1.02 for mission building. Does anybody know a russian medium range SAM system in DCS which can be disabled by destroying their target acquisition radar?