Pyroflash

No, the U.S. is the leading exporter of capital goods (49% of all of our exports are capital goods, and we are the world's 2nd leading nation in terms of industrial output), and the leading developer of new technologies (i.e. more patents developed than other countries). The actual production facilities (i.e. the places that USE those capital goods) are located elsewhere simply because it is cheaper. The end result that we as consumers see is that 17.1% of China's exports come to us as consumer goods. Most people don't look at the big picture and realize that the U.S. export industry is still really strong, and in terms of total economic standing, the U.S. is still ranked #1. Though public perception would put China as #1, when in fact they used to be #3 next to Japan in 2000 (They are #2 now, but they only surpassed Japan's economy in 2001). Due to their large export trade with Europe however, their economy is decreasing steadily due to problems in the EU (attempts have been made at restructuring to prevent any further drop, but at this time it is unknown whether they will be largely effective or not).

Ah, got it, that makes sense. No, U.S. Census data is taken directly from businesses, it is different from a poll or a survey in which people have a choice to participate. The data is mainly used for taxes, government programs, and evaluators, but is also used to determine certain other factors as well. The figure I stated was saying that a large majority of the world's highly skilled labor has residency in the U.S. it does not however, say who, or what they work for, or even if they are a citizen for that matter. It even includes illegals (though I am not sure how many illegal immigrants are doing research in labs). The data that we have available however, is much more specific and telling than that of most available data for other countries. So that is parsed through and approximations are made looking at other data like exports, GDP, etc. to determine what percentage of a target nation's population is "skilled labor". It may not be 100% accurate, but it should be reasonably accurate given the amount of available information.

Any idea on what the P-51's implementation is, or does it not have this feature (i.e. no pressure governor, just the two gearings)?

The sad thing is that the Taliban probably valued the destroyed Harriers higher than the dead Marines.. Kind of makes you think..

It isn't, and I misspoke. The number was determined using job statistics for the labor force that was gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. Registered businesses are required to participate in this, and there are fines for providing incorrect information. Go muck around with the CIA, they will confirm this. Oh yeah, I don't doubt it. I respect them for trying for sure. We will see where the future takes us, but I can pretty reliably say that it isn't a future in which U.S. invents tech x, China copies tech x into tech y. That is just human stupidity at work, that type of thinking. More than likely we will see a China where they try to improve their R&D and production infrastructure to the point where they can reliably compete with the rest of the world. That makes sense. Edit: I thought MIPS licensed their architecture to China for modification so that they didn't need to write any extra code for compatibility?

WOW are those some efficient processors! Would be nice if I could see a factsheet for them. Edit: Do they really plan to achieve an indigenous CPU that can do 1 petaFLOPS with a single proc? At least anytime soon? It seems rather unlikely even if world peace were to happen and everyone scrapped their militaries for the sole purpose of making a better microprocessor. I mean those most anyone can do right now is maybe a teraFLOP right? Stuff like that is maybe six years away for a consumer computer. To say nothing of a single processor. I don't know really, at this point I am simply getting out of scope. I am not a very good predictor of future technology's performance. Thanks for sharing though, however I definitely wouldn't want one of those in my computer. Low power netbook procs are fine.. for low power netbooks..An F-15 on the other hand needs some F100's (Or maybe some F-119's (Dear god! could you even imagine that!)):D (My F-15 needs some new engines :( (ASUS Rampage III Formula, Intel I7-975 @3.33 GHz))

Nope, the wait will test even the most steadfast of manly men.

Nope, global polls indicate that the U.S. have over 70% of the world's high skilled worker base (e.g. sciency people). This is further evidenced by the fact that most capital tech (The stuff people use to make the stuff you buy) is developed inside the U.S. This is, overall, a good market indicator of who has the largest tech/R&D base. Although, that being said, the U.S. is lacking in unskilled and semi-skilled labor (e.g. the people who make the stuff you buy). As a result, U.S. developed products tend to be of a higher quality, but of a significantly reduced quantity.

It is, but setting the trim to 2.5 degrees instead of 5 should work fine in the current release.

No, you must be misunderstanding something here. Moderators make our lives miserable, testers make fun of us, and GA is like ED's little energizer bunny that keeps us here whilst banging his proverbial drum. There is no testing going on, I can assure you. :D

Yeah, I will agree with you there, but disable dynamic weather in your mission and watch it stop happening. Just because I can't explain how space whales exist, doesn't mean that they don't. At any rate, I am sure that the testers will sort it all out. (Space whales and all) ;)

They can try to imitate it, but the facts are that China lacks the tech base in order to effectively develop OR reproduce technologies. The only thing China really has going for it is its hunger in acquiring corporations, but even this really doesn't do them any good as whatever investment they ultimately put in the pot towards research is ultimately going to wind up in APL, JPL, or MIT. Because, lets face it, most technology isn't researched by firms or corporations, but by university labs, and you can guarantee that these labs have contracts with the U.S. government. Therefore any tech that Chinese owned corporations get their hands on is already going to be either second hand or patent protected, or they simply won't know about it. Even if they know about it, and theoretically don't care about patents, the likelihood of them being able to effectively develop and make use of these technologies is fairly limited. This is the problem they are coming out to have with their current aircraft. The Chinese simply lack the metallurgical and technical processes to produce aircraft to the same standard and precision as we can with the F-22A and F-35. This really is a major issue, since believe me, precision is everything when it comes to the characteristics of those aircraft. And again, using the term "copy" is a bit misused. The only things the Chinese have actually copied are parts of the J-7, the entire J-11 airframe, and the J-15. This made the Russians angry, understandably, because it violates the IP of the RuF UAC. The Chinese ONLY have the rights to produce the Su-27 under local license, however they breached this licensing agreement willfully in order to subvert the costs of licensing the carrier borne Su-33. That is stealing, and even in the business of killing, honor and self-respect are paramount (Or at least they should be).

Capacitors are made primarily in Japan, IC's are developed almost entirely in the U.S., same with the wafers. All China really does is print the boards. All that requires is skilled labor to do the manufacturing. All the high skilled development is still done elsewhere. Reference this by the fact that no consumer producer for processors or GPU's are based in China. They are all run and developed out of the U.S. Really the closest thing is TSC (makes a great deal of the processors for most of the world (Not Intel)) and this guy Jen-Hsun Huang who is the founder and CEO of Nvidia. Both of these parties are Republic of China in any case, which isn't even remotely the same thing as "The People's Republic of China" (Hint, one is a democratic nation on a small island that managed to escape Mao Zedong's purges). No, The F-2 is a radically different aircraft, with much varied capabilities when compared to the basic F-16C that it was developed using information from. It would be like comparing the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E, when they are radically different airframes. They may look the same, kind of, but that is where the similarity ends. As for learning things. Yes, you can learn things, but you aren't going to accomplish very much if you try and copy the outer shell of the F-22A or F-35. This is because the materials and processes used will be inferior and wrong for the most part. This is why nothing was copied, and nothing can be copied. It can only be imitated at this point, which won't make a very good aircraft. Essentially, when dealing with computed design processes (F-35 and F-22A), China is starting from scratch whether they know it or not. So good for them if they want to make their own jet. I will not complain or get angry at it. I am merely trying to dis spell the insinuation that any copying of the F-35 or F-22A is going on, because point in fact, it isn't. At least not like the J-7 (Yeah, I am fully aware that quite a bit of this jet is Chinese, because the sneaky Russians didn't provide all of the tech data to build a stock MiG-21) or J-11/15 was a copy of their Russian counterparts.

"They took photographs and videos in public areas, as countless tourists arriving to enjoy the beauty and hospitality of Greece may well do. These included a short video as they drove through the main road passing around the international airport, where in one short part of the video off in the distance some hangars and other buildings of the complex can be seen." Hardly methodical, and yes, if I went to Edwards AFB to take photos of the closest mountain, I'm pretty sure I could get away with it provided I wasn't sitting there with a high powered lens. I mean, people live up there. There are multiple state parks up there. Anyways, back to BIS. Since their research was done many years ago on Lemnos, I doubt that they went there to spy for Bohemia. More likely the Authorities knew that the two devs were coming, and as a result of past disagreements (Greece is heavily against BIS' purely fictional portrayal of their island), were looking for any excuse to detain them. Even if that isn't the case (which I don't think it is anyways), they weren't anywhere sensitive, and weren't doing anything over what thousands of tourists do every year.

They are, but remember that the system isn't truly dynamic. It is given a seed number which propagates the weather conditions for the system, but for any given mission the weather will progress in the same manner. I figured that it had to be something out of the ordinary, and the first thing I unchecked was random failures. When I kept exploding I checked triggers next, nope. From there it was an easy guess that it was the weather, barring any chance that the airfields or aircraft are bugged. Though a few other things did enter my mind such as some AI unit, but since there were none in the unit list, well, I guess not. I hope I was at least of some assistance. Your best bet I guess is to turn dynamic weather off until we can get a dev/tester response.

Found the problem. It isn't parking spot related. The issue is the dynamic weather system is creating anomalies which are literally crashing your aircraft. Well, I guess it is kind of parking spot related. Different weather conditions at different spots lead to different results. In any case though, I am pretty sure that this isn't supposed to be happening.

Yeah, I can confirm that this is happening and 100% reproducible as you describe.

Your system is woefully out of date. To expect good FPS you must have at least some sort of Core I series processor (1st gen I7 at 3.0 GHz I'd say) with a 5870+ AMD/475+ Nvidia card, and 6 GB of RAM. Expecting anything more than what you are getting with your current hardware is probably unrealistic. Multiple GPU implementations would not help very much in this case, as there really isn't any way to take advantage of them in the current application. Granted the application could be optimized to use more processor threads, but that wouldn't help your current issue very much.

Does the aircraft explode, or do you simply die? If the latter is true, there could be bigger problems than just collision. Does it happen the same way every time? (i.e. sometimes you explode, whereas sometimes certain parts break off)

I stayed up all night waiting, where is it!??

Why, if I wanted to take a picture of a tree that has a military base in the background, I need to inform the police? That is absurd. If I was inside of the base, or hanging around on the fence, of course that would be a completely different story.

It is a full function multi-touch display. There are no LSK's similar to how the F-35's pit is setup, except the F/A-18E's version is much larger.

Right, thanks for clearing that up. However, you do know that the F-2 project was a result of of technology transfers between MHI and LHM? Not exactly a copy, or some stolen hardware. The J-15 however was a blatant copy of the Su-33 of which no transfers or licenses have been approved by the Russian government. As for China copying U.S. hardware. They aren't. It simply isn't feasible given their research base when compared to America. This is mainly because while in general, China has a greater and more diverse worker base. And while China does have more skilled labor than the U.S., the U.S. still has something like 70% of the world's high skilled work force (e.g. scientists) within its borders, and this is unlikely to change. However due to this imbalance, it makes developing new technologies at a rate comparative to the U.S. extremely difficult, and more often than not their only option is to rely on proven tech in mass numbers. Basically what Aaron said. It is important to mention however, that Russia is basically in the same boat here. Though they outsource a lot of their tech now, which makes using more advanced computers and construction techniques a lot more feasible than it used to be (Fall of the Union timeframe). Plus Russia has TsAGi, which, let's face it, is really good at what they do.

Yeah, but they weren't right outside the base, they took photos that happened to have military installations in them. Not only that, but it wasn't like the cameras were full of them either. Only a few photos were found containing actual military buildings.

Nice, nice, I will give this a shot tomorrow after my nap time, err.. Meteorology class.