Kira

Be aware, folks, Full Monty is a super big bunch of stuff, (in all reality, he just compiled a bunch of SAS mods into single installs), some of which is a CPU hog and framerate killer. Oh and before you don't read the rest of this, also, be warned: activating this pack though JSGME can take three forevers. Be very patient. I'd also advise a dedicated install and no plans to uninstall it, but hey... My system is a 2006-8ish (don't remember exactly), and even being high end for a "not exorbitant" price at the time, I got to #4 or so of this pack and tried a simple island based quick mission with only me. The result was not a slideshow per se, but definitely laggy. I wasn't impressed with that, and will have to await a more modern CPU in order to partake. Looks really REALLY nice, assuming you have the system to run it though. It's the epitome of the reason why many of us (myself included) still fly this sim at all; the enormously expanded content. Still, it would be nice to have it in 4.11 base. Oh well. Edit: That's assuming I can get DBW running again in the first place. Follow install directions? Yup. Success? Nope. Trying to tell me something, I think.

Depends, is she blonde?! Glad to help. Actually, I've found that it's a perfect neutral hover power point in ArmA 2 helicopters, so there is a silver lining, no matter how small. I'm considering adjusting it so that the detent is 100% throttle in IL2, but still haven't decided as I suspect it'll take quite a bit of fiddling to get it just right. You'll notice with the design of the grip it's kinda verticalish. It's designed to be most comfortable ergonomically speaking in full throw forward (full burner GO GO GO!!!) naturally...

Oh key. Hehe.

Regarding Snowy, my father tells of the days when our farm was operational and of a certain bull (I think) called Tuck... and of later having Tuckburger on numerous occasions. A word of caution about the Microsoft Force Feedback 2: They are not invincible, and will degrade over time; they are also no longer in production, so if you find one at a good price, it might be a good idea to get it and save it for a rainy day. I have set mine aside after it quit working (wires broke in the stress relief point, and repair proved unsuccessful) and have settled (for the time being) on a Thrustmaster Hotas X http://itc.ua/files/...pics/2(531).jpg. It's okay, but nothing to write home about. The first separate throttle arangement I've ever had, but even that is less than spectacular. There's a damn detent dead center of the throttle throw so it sticks at 55% throttle, and I have to shove it through... at which point the trottle itself physically slides across my desk due to the sideways forces applied. That and no force feedback whatsoever. Sigh. I miss my FFB2! EDIT: Yep, okay, I offically hate that damn detent in the throttle. Just blew up my first Junkers Jumo 004 due to unintended "surge" from 55% - 100%. Grumble.

It finally gave up the ghost. Quit working entirely some months ago (after on again off again that many of you probably remember), so I did a troubleshoot and came up with bad wires in the connection (wire) between the stick and the USB. Narrowed it down the the stress relief point just at the entry of the wires into the stick. I ended up doing surgery; cut out the bad wires (section, I was correct they had broken inside the stress relief point) and soldered them back to the ones going into the board in the stick. No luck, what had been an intermittent connection prior to this operation was now nonexistent. No recognition of the stick by the CPU whatsoever, no green light on the base. Nothing. I've decided to set it aside, since I'm not really good at electrical stuff, and the only other thing I can think to do is replace the entire USB cable. Is this the next, and correct, course of action? That's been the state of affairs for the past months, and one of several reasons I haven't been around. (Kinda hard to fly without a stick. Full deflection or nothing keyboard flying doesn't cut it.) So what to replace it with? X-52s are out, I hate, hate, HATE that idiotic stick design, though the throttle's alright. I do like the weight the motors in the FFB's base give it and resultant stability. And am looking for something with similar weight, which seems to cut out just about everything else on the market... except another FFB2. Am I busy answering my own question here? Hehe. It does sound a bit like it after GothKrieger's statement about them still being available. Hum.....

"BAM" is right! Who needs sound when you have a gorgeous redhead girl. Cars? There were cars?

Ah, so there are advantages to being single. Thanks for reminding me. I needed that about now.

Took one of my very rare jaunts over to the Ubi forum just now and came across a gem. The topic was bemoaning the loss of the old style forum for this new, useless, and impersonal style. A statement was made about how the images are geared toward gamer kids, not historically oriented adults, and especially about the World of Warcraft sci-fi look. The following interaction transpired: Originally Posted by Beirut Agreed. This new forum makes me feel like I'm posting on a World of Warcraft site. Can I get an Elf and an Orc for my Spitfire please? WTE_Galway Certainly. The significant contribution of the large contingent of young and cute elven lassies flying Spitfires for the RAF during Britain's darkest hours is under-rated and warrants far more attention than previously given. AndyJWest Galway, you should be ashamed of yourself. We don't need elven photoshoppery. Real Spitfire pilots were much better looking:

Same here. I can't see spending that kind of money on "pretend". For pretend, I'll stick with FPS computer sims/games.

Wow. That was a twist. Certainly didn't expect that ending. Nicely done. Excepting, of course, the Hollywood landings.

Super nice. I can finally update mine from 4.07.

I have it, and agree with it's biggest pet peeve: For something that's named Strike Fighters, there sure is wayyyy too much A2A involved. My other issue is with bombing/scoring. I don't mind having 5-10% hit ratios on some of these missiles, as they simulate 1950's missile technology, but I do take issue with the seemingly atrocious calculations for bomb hits. It seems that you have to hit a target absolutely square to register a hit. You have the option to salvo bombs (at any of highly selectable numbers and delays, which, as a feature, is seldom seen, and absolutely awesome), but why would you, if you know that the first bomb will destroy the target, the target will disappear, and the others will count as misses, because the target's no longer there? Or, the fact that you have to get a dead on hit even with a 2000lber. Nope, sorry, very near misses don't count! Oh, and the goofy, fake scenario didn't help, either. Plenty of real ones to go by and they choose to make one up that isn't even viable? Eh. Overall, for atmosphere, I'd give it an 8 or 9. Brought home an A-4 once with the outer 1/4-1/3 of the wing missing from a 23mm hit, and making all kinds of weird gyrations. That was a sense of accomplishment, for sure. But otherwise, it's very simple, press one button to switch AA to AG modes. There's also the tracking feature that tracks every bomb, bullet and missile you ever fire. If you care at all about your percentages, you can forget about "practice". As far as the game's concerned, it's all going on the scorecard. What did it in for me was the lack of a user mission editor. The computer made ones seemed dopey, and extremely limited. They did make sequels. One was Wings Over Europe, the other Wings Over Vietnam. I bought both. Same issues apply. The carrier elements, when finally available in WOV, were decidedly meh. On the plus side, there are lots and lots of nice user made airplanes out there. They were at http://www.column5.us/aircraft.shtml. Linky's messed up. Google it. It'll show.

Interesting... I guess I never really studied the F-35 very much. Was surprised to find that ArmA 2 got it right in the forward hinging canopy. I'd figured no one had done such things since the MiG-21F. Okay.... I wonder why they did that? To protect the pilot in high speed ejection, perhaps?

You didn't really want that... or did you?

It's all fun and games until someone looses an eye... and then, hey, free eye! Seriously, what's the fun in stock cars that aren't stock and slot cars that don't even look like cars? Goofy.

They got the propeller pitch control direction fixed in the F4F series, as I'd asked. I can read the clock again. Nice! My (very limited) testing shows that the straight in approach option now means that it's a lot less likely that you'll run out of fuel going around again. And again. And again. waiting for the AI to get their act together as several aircraft will (attempt to) land in trail. The downside, as noted by TD, is that they now have a tendency to collide with each other on a straight in approach or just after landing. Beware the runaway wingman. Apparently, these alternate settings aren't available on carriers.... Additionally, the ones that went around (two of four) promptly flew into the ground. Blew an AI Zero out of the air with a 38J. Average skill, and no last minute dippy-dos! (He never budged, as I screamed in from high six.) Looks like they really got something right with all that AI tweaking. Did some messing around with "patrol" settings for FMB waypoints. Awesomeness and then some. This makes patrol missions a whole heap quicker and easier to set up. Anyone who's up for some 4.11 tonight, I'd be glad to (assuming I can get the time). No guarantees. Initial impressions are good.

(That's Project "FICON", all caps. Silly auto word thing!) Just ran across these, thought it might interest some. The tests displayed are one of two parasite programs that I know of that were tested. The other entails attachment of the fighters to the bomber's wingtips. The basic idea was that the intercontinental bomber could bring its fighter escort with it, as it would, of course, long outstrip them in range. I'm led to believe that the perfection of the air refueling concept resulted in the shelving of this project. Quote: "A dozen Air Force and Convair photographs of Project FICON Convair GRB-36 carrier aircraft and Republic F-84 parasites from 1952 to 1956: Convair GRB-36F 49-2707 and Republic F-84E Thunderjet 49-2115 at Forth Worth, Texas and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida Convair GRB-36F 49-2707 and Republic YRF-84F Thunderstreak 49-2430 at Fort Worth, Texas and Dayton, Ohio Convair GRB-36D 49-2962 and Republic RBF-84F Thunderflash 52-7266 over Washington State Convair GRB-36D 49-2694 and Republic RF-84K Thunderflash 52-7258 at Edwards Air Force Base, California These Air Force and Convair photographs were acquired from the National Museum of the USAF, National Archive, Major Clarence "Bud" Anderson (ret), and Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems." From: http://www.air-and-s...iation_2012.htm

Guess he still hasn't figured out that easily 90% of life is acting like you know what you're doing, when you really haven't a clue.

Pilot error. No surprise there. I'll add that the idiotic Airbus design didn't help when, had they been flying a Boeing, they might have figured the problem sooner. (EDIT: That's a pilot's sentiment, not a nationalistic one.) AF447 crash cause

A woolball, as opposed to a furball?

Had one of my three to fiveish beers a year, thanks. For once I'm comfortably full after TG dinner. Happy Turkey day to all you as well.

Okay, perhaps I was simply using an older stock P-38 cockpit but "WOW!" is the only way to describe this one. Having spoken and had the little things pointed out, now I see it, and it does look a lot better. The CO would like to know, however, why it is that instead a picture of a nice girl like all the other guys have in their airplanes, I have a cartoon dog. And what, exactly, "Danger Dogz" means. I tried explaining it to him, but he just gave me a funny look. Oh well.

For some reason, I was thinking BAE Hawk. Don't ask why, I have no clue.

Okay, okay, I give!