Starlight

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17022006/368/homeland-security-urges-drm-rootkit-ban.html

It's not an operator manual, but anyway a good source of info for F-15E http://www.f-15e.hu/ together with http://f-15estrikeeagle.com/

http://www.ausairpower.net/technology.html

I understand... I didn't know exactly whose work was the F-111 code, I just recognized the skin made by me and Mitch ;) It just took some time to figure out what was where in that weird F-111 skin/model :) BTW JJ, I'm still waiting for your "four country" addon mod, will you ever release it?

I think the F-111 mod has different authors... ;) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/298102916/r/197006507#197006507 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/298102916/r/768001107#768001107 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/38610606/m/298102916/r/307003007#307003007 Skinnin' the Vark was a pretty tricky job and also Mitch did an awesome work!

It's not the only one... that I know, there was also an F-16 which was shot down by the iron bomb which bounced back soon after release and exploded under the wing. I think it was from 614th TFS Lucky Devils during Desert Storm, 1991.

During Operation Frequent Wind? I don't think the US lost any Tomcat, they just flew high cover...

Italy now conquered by Lockon! :D

called "Kari", not a big effort... it's just IRAK (french for Iraq) spelled inverted... just a short story ... I've read that French and other coalition Mirages were not allowed to fly over Iraq for the fear of friendly fire accidents, since Iraqis used mirages too

great vid man! I liked the original one and I like this one too... you got a good sense of humour too! BTW, still waiting Tornado2 here! ;) I still got the original printed maps for when that time will come!

I'd also use this trick.... AI will think you are a friendly and won't react.

great skin! ;)

IMHO copy protections shouldn't be strongholds that last years but infect users PCs with unknown/undesired features. Sony (not ED, Starforce or any other small company) today is facing serious troubles for the so-called "rootkit" for DRM. Copy protections should be good enough to withstand for some months hacker attacks without being cracked... after that timeframe the software protected becomes a bit "old" and it doesn't need copy protection any more. I think that even today a good copy protection (that at least requires the hassle of emulation to be cracked) and a "not so high" price would make people buy more original software.

I don't have anything personal against SF. Simply put, copy protections shouldn't be drivers. All drivers (not just copy protections), if not properly tested can screw up systems. That is no news. no comment :(

Well, an interview with a Starforce team member is not a great idea too... Do you think he'd say: "Yes my program is totally crap and is a deadly malware ****ing spyware"???!!! :D lol Also their "replicate your bug" contest isn't that good. It's really difficult to replicate a crash, and just consider this: how many people would take a trip to starforce studios, just to show that their $ 30 game causes a computer crash? I understand that some problems with starforce are caused by "that thing that stands between the keyboard and the chair" but there have been also detailed reports of malfunctions.

one of the problems within Starforce, is that it's not just a program. It's a driver, which operates at really low level, much lower than it should. This thing has two big consequences: 1. Like all drivers, bugs and holes can seriously affect system stability, performance and security... just think about a bugged chipset/IDE/video driver... you'll hardly get your system running! 2. If MS planned their OS with security levels there must be a reason! If all programmers started to build drivers instead of programs, systems would crash continuously. I understand the need to protect games and programs. But I think protection can't affect the final user. BTW, for a thing very similar to Starforce, Sony is facing serious troubles....

did you use the schemes available on the Internet (fresnel lens + LCD panel + lamp)?

Their distribution is at least "very restricted" to foreigners... at least that's what you told me on a previous thread... ;)

I don't think so... he asks why ED can't model what is already modelled by the Falcon team. Anyway a 3D-pit is not a thing you can easily import-export. I think each sim must have its own pits built from scratch. Ok I have the MLU manuals too. The CJ manuals are classified, like F-16 weapons manuals, and no foreigners could acquire them. ED managed to get them before they were restricted.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/anticopying_malware_.html it seems to explain some things. I'm not sure they're 100% correct, anyway the main problem with starforce is that many users report problems, and that's unacceptable for a copy protection system. If its job is to guard the companies' income, it shouldn't do it to final users' cost.

Maybe but as already reported many times by Olgerd, ED has been able to acquire many manuals which now are for restricted use... for example the F-16CJ manual....

That is why A-10s flew much more missions than Tornados. The problem was identifying military units which were *often* well camouflaged near (if not within) civilian structures, knowing that strict ROE and mass-media would prevent attacks. Well to identify camouflaged targets in bad weather you need to fly slow. A low pass @ Mach 1 doesn't help to identify a mobile target at all. Tornado is the choice if you want to pound a military complex like an airbase, which is large, open and, most important, doesn't change its location! The A-10 was THE CHOICE because they wanted something which was able to fly slow, loiter for a long time and sustain eventual damage from AAA. The A-10 was definitely the best aircraft to do that. They could do that because NATO had already gained air superiority (that wasn't the hardest part of the war). Yet NATO failed to destroy Serbian air defense system (by admission of many officers) and that forced aircraft to fly higher for better protection. As a consequence air attacks were quite unsuccessful (at least compared to the sortie numbers) and often took "collateral damage", which is a stupid word to describe a really horrible thing. The problem in todays "low intensity" conflicts (don't know who came up with this expression) is that often the countries attacked are clearly overwhelmed from the military point of view, so they resort to "last-ditch" tactics like mergin' military targets in the urban areas. It happened in Kosovo and in Iraq, and it's a great limitation for the use of air power.

That's an incredible movie Caretaker! "My squadron ships out tomorrow, we're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri, at 1800 hours. We're comin in from the north, below their radar" "When will you be back?" "I can't tell you that, it's classified" :D

99% of movies suck when talking about realism. Firefox, TopGun, IronEagle (I, II and III), while being famous, they really suck if you look for realism. They're just action movies.... but there are many more... I've just quoted some of the "best", because at least they have some decent footage... That of Behind enemy lines is a wonderful chase... they really don't know what rocket burnout means :)

WIIIIIIIILSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON! :D