Starlight

the problem is that you should rebuild mathematics and computer science from scratch. In mathematics we can calculate rounded shapes with some precision, but not in a 100% perfect fashion. When we step from simbolic mathematics to numerical mathematics, there is always an error, which depends on our degree of precision. The integrals, which are used to calculate areas or volumes, and are largely used in 3D mathematics (like also matrices), are not 10000% precise methods. They use finite-calculated shapes, in a number going to infinite so they actually appear to approximate every shape. The same thing applies when passing from analogic to digital form. There is always an error, an approximation. So back to the sim (3D) environment, we can have a 100,000,000 polygon shape, but that would never be a rounded shape. It will still have polygons. much more polygons, so that to the humans appears as a rounded object. What you're talking about "thinking outside the box" it's not that easy. some have already tried to kill axioms of computer science. there are studies about quantum electronics, nano-technologies, organic-based processors.... but we're still here with binary tech and other things like that. so i don't think this forum is the right place for such discussions... :) ps: sorry for my english, especially when talking about mathematics....

really good pics... actually the mig-23 in that photo is BN version, which means the A2G version (similar to Mig-27). I think the cockpit of the fighter version is slightly different. There was a huge website specialized in A/C cockpits, but now is offline. I can't remember its name (or URL), I wish somebody mirrored it...

It's one of my fav books. I bought it more than one year ago, yes at a good price (on the back says $ 39.95 USD) :). I've found good bargains on ebay, most of the books are in mint condition. The problem is that shipping to Italy is usually high (or takes a lot of time... or even both! :) ). I also buy at amazon merchants, I've been very happy with them, you can find extremely rare and out-of-print books. Another bargain made on ebay: "Lockheed Blackbird: beyond the secret missions" bought at £ 17.00 included shipping (from UK to Italy and it's a really heavy book). MSRP: £ 29.00. I also bought the previous edition by Crickmore "Secret missions exposed" and again, I paid it $ 17.00 USD included shipping to Italy. MSRP was $ 35.00. This item took more than 3 months to get here from U.S.A.!

If you have some confidence with overclock you should try it on your CPU. AMD64 3200 with core Venice overclock quite easily so you could reach the performance of the 4000 without buying any new CPU. Beware, you should be able to do it you should also have the right hardware (a good mobo and a lucky CPU)

Why upload them and risk a lawsuit for copyright infringement when you can upload/download via eMule or with any P2P software? I have found tens of GB of ebooks (squadron signal, lockon, russian magazines... ) with eMule ;) BTW, if you really like a book, buy it. Ebay has a lot of auctions with books at low prices. (an example: I bought the "Iron Hand" book for just $ 13.00 USD) ;)

I'm not saying the current F-15E is comparable to the current F-14D. I was saying that the F-15E and F-14D are aircraft of the same generation, both evolutions of strictly air-to-air projects. The F-15E was well funded, upgraded and developed, the F-14D wasn't. The F-14D was probably dead since its early production, because without political support (= gov't funds) no aircraft can survive. Budget cuts for aircraft are worse than most air defenses. I read somewhere that many people regard the F-14D as a more capable air-to-ground platform than even the F-15E. That doesn't mean that these capabilities were exploited. Anyway F-15E received Sniper and JDAM just a few years ago (Sniper was tested during OIR, in 2003), when F-14D were already planned to be scrapped. Before the last StrikeEagle upgrades the Bombcats were a good match... they had similar radars, both had JTIDS, GPS, LANTIRN, JDAM, NCTR, the Bombcat also had ASPJ (even the F-18C don't have them as standard, they have less ASPJ kits than airframes). The StrikeEagle could carry the Slammer, but not the Phoenix. That is precisely my point. The Tomcat was fully exploited only too late, and at that point it was already destined to be retired. BTW, this post won't change anything in Tomcat's history, anyway I was a bit sad knowing that my favourite aircraft, which was a very very very capable platform, was scrapped beforehand because it wasn't funded. And just in favour of an aircraft which doesn't seem a marvel like an F-22 for example. IMHO scrapping the Tomcat is a HUGE waste in terms of money and campability. Extending its life would have costed billions of bucks, but it would have saved the money to develop and field (R&D, weapons and avionics tests) a brand new aircraft, waiting for a next generation aircraft, a kinda carrier-based f-22. The SuperHornet is NOT a new generation aircraft. And just a quick note, what will the US gov't do with the Phoenix arsenal (each item rated at about than $ 1,000,000 USD)? Will they fire them like fireworks at New Year's Day? :) I'd already seen that... a real jerk!

Is it legal??? I.e. which is the difference from downloading from that site and from eMule (apart from the download speed)?

You'll love it! it's a great book! Another great book is: Fighter Missions by Bill Gunston, Lindsay Peacock - Guild Publishing Describes many types of missions (both Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground) from pilot's perspective, from mission planning to debriefing. It's fictional but gives a good idea on how things work (even though it's "a bit" biased towards Western aircraft, since it was written about 15 years ago) And two very good technical books (to have a basic understanding of aviation topics) are: Modern Air Combat, by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick - Salamander It covers everything from design issues to aerodynamics, from aircraft history/description to tactics. It's a bit old (1983) but has good concepts and Modern Fighter Aircraft by Anthony Thornborough - Patrick Stephens Limited. Covers tactics and technical issues of modern warfare (mainly avionics and weapons). Well written and very detailed. Then, if you're looking to particular aircraft there are tons of books, for example the Jane's World Airpower Journals or Jane's "At the controls" series, but that depends on the kind of info you want (and/or the amount needed)

Chunx is a backseater, maybe the SuperHornet has just more comfortable ejection seats :D

Avionics: the F-14D has some of the most advanced avionics in the world. Not to be compared to the F-22, maybe it also has a somewhat old cockpit, ok... but it has a digital FCS, one of the most powerful radar/weapon systems in the world, ECM up to the USN standards and it has proven to be very flexible when it had to adopt new weapons. It's kinda weird that the F-15E Strike Eagle is regarded as a modern aircraft, a marvel as far as avionics are concerned and the F-14D an old truck just able to carry those big missiles. The F-14D is at least as modern as the Strike Eagle, and most of the airframes were built later than F-15E airframes. Maintenability: the Super Hornet here has a huge advantage over the Tomcat, but it must be said that newer Tomcats are another thing compared to older ones. And this is what the author that I quoted said in another forum: What the writer [referring to an article] so conveniently overlooks is that most of the deficiencies in the Tomcat's handling qualities (and a portion of its maintenance headaches) were fixed by the long-overdue adoption of a digitial flight control system that was retrofitted into existing Tomcats beginnning in the late 90s. in his signature I read that he works at this facility as a developer: NAS Patuxent River so I think he knows what he's writing... (BTW he publishes his contact info so I don't think he's writing BS about his job)

The problem is that when the F-14 replaced the Phantom everybody recognized it had superior qualities. Better speed, range, weapon system, maneuvrability and so on... Today there are really few people who claim that the F-18E is superior to the F-14. It costs less per unit? Yes but you need 2 planes to carry the same weapon load of the Tomcat. It requires half maintenace per flight hour? Yes, but it has to fly twice the hours because it's slower and for each flight requires an AAR. Extending F-14 life time would have costed many billions $$$? how much will cost R&D + testing of a brand new aircraft? You see that there isn't a clear answer to some trivial questions, without taking into account politics and economic growth...

There are also political lobbies. Producing new fighters bring new jobs and a good kick to economy. It looks like recently contractors have more weight in US gov't decisions... ;) In most threads and discussions there is the common thought that US fighters in the future could just have to face supermaneuvrable opponents doing "Kobras" and "U-turns" in the sky in a few feet... well there is a nation on this planet which has about 20 supermaneuvrables and about 10,000 non-supermaneuvrables. First, guess which nation I'm talkin' about, second, guess what can do more harm to a CVBG, 20 supermaneuvrables or 10,000 non-supermaneuvrables even if armed with iron bombs (or even acting as kamikaze).... for the missiles... the Tomcat could engage even smaller targets than AS-3. and many modern ASMs are just faster, not smarter or smaller than the AS-3. As a "tactical" consideration, I'll also add that I think the Phoenix can be a useful weapon system even in a modern combat environment, and that a SuperHornet armed with 12 AMRAAMs can have enough fuel to takeoff, immediately enter the carrier landing pattern and catch wire #3. And no need to dump fuel before landing. :)

hehe, look at what Germans are doing to keep their Phantoms in the air This pic was taken (by myself) at the latest Italian Open Day at Rivolto AB, September 2005. It shows a detail of a German F-4F taileron mechanism. The one on the right is like it should be. The one on the left shows that some parts are "hand built" from cannibalized airframes :)

I read somewhere that they built air-launched HAWKs which look very similar to AIM-54s

just read this, it's great ;) and please also read who wrote this article... http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200202/ai_n9030925

Sorry GG, but about 70 airframes between F-14B and D versions are brand new, built in the late 80s and early 90s, so they're not 30 years old. Many other F-14As were upgraded to B or D versions to extend their operational life. Most of the F-14D are even younger (and some people say even more capable) than USAF F-15Es! Ok, the Tomcat was complex and expensive to maintain, but it did offer more than the SH does now. And, the article I quoted was taken from a post made by a qualified person, who also wrote that newer Tomcats are not so maintenance-hungry like they're always depicted. The Tomcat just had bad luck since it only had pilots and admirals to support it. It never had the support of politicians. So the early upgrade plans were cut to fund the A-12 Avenger (we know its end), some TARPS money were cut to fund ATARS (we know how many F-18R carry out recon missions today) and further development/production of F-14D was cut to fund F/A-18E/F SH (we all know that the SH has similar range and weapons load compared to the F-14D :) and that it can carry Phoenix AAMs too :) ) If I was leading a CVGB into hostile waters, I'd rather get Tomcats on BARCAP armed with Phoenix, than SHs armed with AIM-120B.... can you imagine, let's say you have a SuperHornet BARCAP flight 150 miles away from the carrier... CIC: "Vector XXX to take out those supersonic bombers armed with supersonic ASMs" SuperHornet Leader "Ok guys, we do have neither fuel nor speed to reach them, and even if we were able to do so we could only launch amraams, which can do everything except engage an ASM" There was a reason why to intercept supersonic bombers armed with supersonic missiles was planned a weapon system with a Mach 2+ fighter armed with Mach 5+ AAMs. Today there are less bombers with the red star, but there are many more with different insignia, and that doesn't make me feel happier at all!

"The U.S. Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighter, a jet built as a Cold War defense against Soviet bombers, is just weeks away from making its final combat sorties before being retired from the U.S. arsenal for good." I've just read this, and I'm really sad. The Roosevelt carrier will depart Persian Gulf for its home base in Norfolk early next year, and will bring its 22 Tomcats to rest in peace at the AMARC. Farewell to a great aircraft (and of course my favourite one), which was completed and fully exploited only a few years before retirement. It's a shame to see the Eagle funded for a life-extending program and the Tomcat retired. It didn't deserve this.

Hi, I had a similar config, with an A64 Venice 3000 tested up to 2900+ Mhz and a GIGABYTE GA-K8NS-939 (with NF3 Ultra chipset, not 250), but I had serious troubles in overclocking. I reached up to 285 Mhz FSB via software, but I wasn't able to save settings on BIOS, whatever version I tried. The mobo simply refused OC. Maybe it was just an "out-of-luck" mobo... anyway AFAIK this is not a mobo for OC'ers, even though some people had some luck with it. I later bought a DFI NF-4 Ultra D, and now my game system is rock-stable at 300 Mhz x 9. When I'll have some time I'll try to reach the 2900-2950 that I saw. Now it's just mothballed in a room, since I've not had enough spare time to set it up apart from some benchmarks.... what a waste!! Back to you, if you were planning serious OC, you should have bought tested CPUs since not all of them overclock so flawlessly (there are shops selling guaranteed CPUs for OC) and I'd have chosen a NF4 ultra or ATI Xpress mobo. If you want to stay low on budget you could buy an Epox or a DFI Infinity with NF4 ultra. They're good OC'ers and they cost much less than high-end mobos. Just a quick note if your planning OC with Gigabyte: default BIOS doesn't show OC settings at all. You have to press CTRL+SHIFT+1 and "secret" features will appear.

Super FASSSST! Whoa, that's a speedy download server! downloaded at an average speed of 1750 KB/s :) took only 9 seconds! great!!! BTW I don't know why this happened, my ADSL should have a 4 Mbps top download speed, which means a maximum of 512 KB/s speed....

Which terrain are you using for this campaign?

is it a bug in LockOn or in these drivers? I know there is this issue since cat 5.12, but this happens because there is a bug in the drivers or because new drivers introduce new features which are not fully compatible with LockOn?

https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=27 or http://www.ati.com/ I haven't tried them yet, so I don't know if they're gonna fix the 5.12 bug

don't know if this has been posted before.... :) ------------------------------------------ Santa Claus, like all pilots, gets regular visits from the Federal Aviation Administration, and it was shortly before Christmas when the FAA examiner arrived. In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sled and bathe all the reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was in order. The examiner walked slowly around the sled. He checked the reindeer harnesses, the landing gear, and Rudolf's nose. He painstakingly reviewed Santa's weight and balance calculations for the sled's enormous payload. Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness and checked the compass. Then the examiner hopped in carrying, to Santa's surprise, a shotgun. "What's that for?" asked Santa incredulously. The examiner winked and said, "I'm not supposed to tell you this ahead of time, but you're gonna' lose an engine on takeoff."

I also had doubts about it... but yes you're wrong ;) I don't know the situation right now, but in one book I have there are the markings of all Prowler squadrons in service (approximately in 1990-91) and there were 12 USN squadrons against a single USMC squadron (VMAQ-2 Playboys). I also thought there were more USMC squadrons, attached to CAGs as they were needed... but I was wrong too ;)

just a "small" problem. Wingmen in LockOn suck, like most of AI. IMHO it's a big problem in a game that does want to be a sim and not an arcade. Today there's no aircraft in the world (apart from stealth and recon planes) that does fly solo missions. BTW, LockOn is not the only game with this problem. I also play Raven Shield sometimes and friendly AI is really horrible. Obviously enemy AI-controlled units are real killers!