Jump to content

FanBoy2006.01

Members
  • Posts

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FanBoy2006.01

  1. Hello all. I realy want to get Flaming Cliffs 2. I am a full time student again after many years. So my budget is non-existant. In the requirements for FC2 I see that one need LOMAC. Here is my problem. I have LOMAC that I bought in South Africa. I think it is the UK version that was sold here. Now the cheapest (Hastle free for me.) FC2 one I can get is from Amazon USA. Does any one here know if I can use the UK LOMAC with the USA FC2?:huh: Thanks.
  2. I think we should stop asking if aircraft A is better than aircraft B and start thinking about how one would counter aircraft A with aircraft B in regard to what we already know about the two. In regard to Aus Super F 18 vs Indo Su 30. If you are going to fight towards the strengths of the Hornet (Or any other oponent.) you are going to loose! Su 30 outnumbered fact. Su 30 less capable (Older gen.) AA missiles. etc. So talking Hornets on directly is foolish. Must devise plan to attain surprise.....etc. Let us rather think of ways of how to fight with or against certain weapon systems.
  3. In reality. The best aircraft to deal with things like Shilkas and close in AA systems would be something like the Apache. But that is not what you asked. With Shilka you can stay high above him and he can not touch you. In my opinion the best two aircraft with dealing with this type of threat is the Su-25T and A-10. With both aircraft you can use RWR to detect bearing of ground based AA. With A-10 you can now ID Shilka exactly. Su you can know that it is a short range ground based radar and get signal strenght to tell you how close you are (H - Third light from the right on RWR.). You can use the IR pod on Su to look for targets at a distance. With A-10 you can use the IR Maveric the same way. Just zoom out and keep distance from target area. Then start scanning. It does not matter if you can not identify the targets. Look for those dots that are by their lonesome. Or in an obvious stationary AA placement. Or placed alongside a convoy route to protect it. Also look for those vehicles that are escorting a platoon or company, usually at the back of a formation. You can then come in closer for a look. You do not have to see a lot of detail to make out multiple guns pointing skyward and a radar or SAM launcher sticking out of the top. Remember once you have detected the loner you can designate him and zoom in to see what he is. If you are familiar with the different vehicles you can easily ID by just looking at the outline. Nothing else look like Shilka. Turret is very big in relation to the body. I only have Lock On 1 (No nothing about Su-25T.) and Black Shark. I am a student again (After 13 years.), so I don't have a budget any more! I do not bother that much to ID these targets. Have blown up civlian vehicles because of this a couple of times, but what the hell. If you want to make an omlet you have got to break a couple of eggs.:thumbup: But it will be the best to take out short range SAMs first and then just bomb from higher up. If they have better SAM cover (Like say SA-15.). Focus on your main targets with Mavs then bug out. "If every man does his best, what else is there."; Gen. G. S. Patton. Or wait till convoy move away from protection and then take out AA escorts. If Shilka is stationary without any SAM cover you can easilly kill him with a Mk 82. If he is moving you can still take him out with a cluster bomb, but then it will be easier to miss him. Hope this helps.
  4. I got bad news every body. Santa has been arrested some where in the Middle East. It seems that he didn't have the right documentation to travel and had a bag full of suspicious parcels.....
  5. "Tempus. Part of grammar." Sorry English is not my native language. What do yo mean? You said: "NASA is not involved in searching for an intelligent ET..." "Ah, documentary..." I said from the beginning it was a documentary. But the words were directly from of the mouth of a NASA scientist. He was talking about what he does. "You completely misunderstand the whole thing, because your example actually does not address what you think it does. Two automobiles are two physical objects. Two minds are two emergent phenomenon. The difference here is absolute. There is almost literally nothing in common." Yes they have little in common. My argument remain the same though. Two identical cars or two identical minds remain separate entities. "Because my mind, as an emergent phenomenon, obeys the laws of reality that governs it." So does that mean you do not believe your self? Sure sounds like it. For instance, fear of death. You are walking across the street a speeding bus comes right at you. You fear for your life and leap out of the way. Now were you worried that you will die or are you trying to save the consciousness that will occupy your changing body tomorrow? Thus it can be said that you don't believe it. "It is a response to a common objection. I'm sorry that you didn't quite understand it. The objection you raised applies to you already. One second to the next, you change. You are not what you were previously. Thus, the only way to raise that objection to transfer of mind that you did is to prove that mind is an actual object. Sadly... there is no such thing as a mind as an object - the closest humanity has ever gotten to that is called "religion", and it just doesn't work whenever someone does something as rude as asking for evidence." What has religion got to do with any thing I am saying? Also, every time I am talking about memory but you keep dragging consciousness into this argument. Actually, if you look at the common definition of mind (I am not referring to consciousness.), it is an existing entity. Once again, what is wrong with my argument (That biological memory and silicon copy are different entities.)? "Where did I talk about "law"? I don't give a crap about law, I'm talking about identity." I mentioned the law because A and B would be treated a two different entities by any legal system on this planet. You said that we change from one moment to the next. So how can you claim that A and B have the same identity seeing that they both are changing from one second to the next? "How can you say there is a copy and an original? To say that you need to first quantify what was there in the first place." Original - the original biological memory copied from. Copy the verbatim reproduction of original biological memory, stored on computer. "In my opinion, you have shown only a massive lack of knowledge about what NASA is actually doing. But I guess I'm just overly picky from having the bad habit of reading actual research papers as opposed to popular media, since we all know popular media get absolutely everything right. Yup. That is fact." Never said I know allot about any thing. In my humble opinion doing 15 years R&D and the 10 years of searching and coming back empty handed constitutes as a f-up. Or sending a probe to the surface of Mars and not taking into account that there will be a jolt when the parachute opens. Thus causing sensors to cut away the parachute as soon as it opens and causing the probe to be destroyed. Also NASA management going ahead after they were warned to delay launch and re-entry by technical staff (Which led to the two shuttle disasters.). In regard to popular media: It was an interview with a NASA scientist who explained what he did at NASA. " SEARCHING FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE: NASA’S HIGH RESOLUTION MICROWAVE SURVEY" - Is a article published by NASA.
  6. EtherealN "Correct my faulty maths but: 1992 + 10 = 2002. No? In case you didn't notice, the present year is 2010." I don't understand? The quote says that after 15 years of R&D NASA launched a ten year program to look for intelligent life. So all and all twenty five years of funding and they found nothing. They could have used the equipment that they were using for normal space exploration and have gotten results! Before you say that they could not have known beforehand what the results would have been, bare in mind that SETI used similar methods and also attained no results. You said NASA is not looking for intelligent life. I got that quote off their site. '..................Does that mean that NASA is doing it, or that NASA said "here's a thing you can do".' Got impression from documentary that it was part of the guys job (Researching on how to find intelligent life.). So he is receiving funding for for it. "If we have absolutely identical cars, a mixup is of no consequence. But if you total yours, then you've totalled yours." Hold on, first you said it both the identical minds and knifes are the same thing; but the moment that you are going to lose your valuable car you can discern them is two different entities? "And the present "me" is absolutely stone dead tomorrow......" If you really believe that why do you feel fear when your life is in danger? You are soon dead any way. Why would you strive to do an activity over a long time? Like have a career? And how does telling me that help your argument? If I cease to exist as my body is slowly regenerated by new matter how will I exist if my thoughts are copied onto silicon? "Again, you don't seem to quite understand what I've been saying: you need to quantify your definition of "you" and "me". What exactly is your consciousness? What links it to your past?" Like I said before I am talking about copying memory. You are talking about consciousness. If we have no link to our past. Then we are not that memory in the machine and then we can not live forever through the machine. You are arguing in favour of my point of view. "Here's another identity problem......" I take it murderer B combusts and worker A stays behind. Lawfully we are guilty for our actions and not our thoughts. If A and B are separate lawful entities A can not be guilty for the actions of B regardless of what he think he has done. But if no one know about B and he gets caught he is screwed anyway. Besides what do you define as identical? Clearly if you make an "identical copy" of yourself it will inevitably mean that at any given moment you and your copy will exist out of different matter and energy. My argument stand. How can you say the copy is now the original? "Yeah, a waste. Here's some number:" What can I say? You hit the nail right on the head! The reason that I lost it in my first post is exactly because this wastefulness of us humans. By that I do not mean that we should take Rover outside for a dirt nap and retrench the whole pet-food industry (Yet.). And like you said, there are much bigger targets when it comes to wasting our resources. Although I went off in a half cocked manner, in the end I am still unhappy about some things that NASA is doing and I stand by this.
  7. GGTharos Actually I think that the moon landings are one of the greatest achievements of all time. As well as programs like Hubble and Voyager. Satellites for communications, gps ect are great also. Jet propulsion research is also great. But spending money on trying to get a living colony on Mars or "teraforming". Is a major waste. Scientists think that in the distant past Mars had an environment that could have sustained life. But because of a to weak magnetosphere, solar radiation "blasted" away most of the atmosphere (Like I said before.). Now how much resources would a project like that need? Also there is alot of hazardous radiation that gets to the surface from the sun. PS the only good thing about disposable diapers are that you don't have to wash them. They are really bad for the environment. But like you said, indirect spin off.
  8. Yes. You are right. My statement reflects more on me than on NASA. It was a mistake of me to say NASA Geeks because with that I generalised to much and insult all their technical staff. But it seems to me that from all media that I receive in my country that NASA seems only interested in two things (Although I know that can not be correct.). Finding life on other planets and colonising Mars. It seams to me that they are political goals (To capture the imagination of the general population and politicians.) to secure funding. It seams that NASA has moved away achieving a set attainable goal through predictable steps to a giant open ended program aimed at unreachable goals. Many of the programs that NASA have launched are extremely disproportionate in the costs compared to the knowledge gained.
  9. EtherealN Yeah my rant was rather general. I started losing direction pretty soon after I started typing. But I will stand by my fist shaking and complaining. I will try to answer your arguments against my views. I saw a documentary during the past week on DSTV where all that I talked about was discussed by NASA scientists. They even talked about uploading our thoughts into a computer. Bare in mind that I did not say that these ideas were first thought up by NASA. Quote from: SEARCHING FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE: NASA’S HIGH RESOLUTION MICROWAVE SURVEY “On Columbus Day, October 12, 1992, after a 15-year research and development effort by the NASA Ames Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA inaugurated a 10-year program to search the sky for radio signals of intelligent extraterrestrial origin.” More importantly in that DSTV NASA scientists openly talked about ways to search for intelligent life. Like for instance the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere of another planet that might have been produced by alien industry. So NASA is actively looking for intelligent life. Yeah I know SETI has got nothing to do with NASA. I was referring to the fact that SETI has not received any signals from alien life. The two main reasons sited by scientists were not enough area was covered and that EMF signals dissipates far more quickly than previously calculated. So it will not be so easy for aliens to detect us by our transmissions. I was joking about “my wireless”. I thought that was obvious. Still scientists telling us that one reason to change telecoms would be to make us harder to detect by alien life means that they want us hiding our presence in the universe. But if it is cheaper to use fiber optics, then I am all for it! I didn’t talk about the transfer of consciousness; but the transfer of thoughts (Memory.). My point is that the machine will be a copy of you and not you. So it is utterly pointless to transfer our thoughts to a machine so that we may “live” on. “Also, if you have two exactly identical knives, does it matter which one you bring to scout camp? Nope. They'll both do exactly the same thing. So if you have two exactly identical minds, does it matter which one you say is you and which one isn't?” That is your opinion! Say we both have identical cars (Including identical serial numbers.). Does it matter who drives what car? Before you answer that question, say the one day I total my car and then I come to you insisting that your car is mine because they are identical! If you transfer your thoughts to a machine and you die the machine will still be a machine and you will still be dead. If you clone yourself and you die, the clone will still be a clone and you will still be dead. In regard to clean energy. Read my last paragraph of my previous post. That is my whole point. We are being steered in the wrong direction by decision makers and that includes NASA. I have heard NASA scientists on TV saying they want to “teraform” Mars. On the other hand they say Mars became uninhabitable, because solar radiation stripped of most of the atmosphere because the magnetosphere of Mars is too weak. Now they want to reverse this prosses?!?!? To me it is criminal to waste money on such an scheme. Millions of dollars are going down the drain on funding research. Would it not have been better to spend money on research on how turn back what is going on, on this planet? Even better; implementing what we already know can be done about it. Still coal and oil give us a lot more energy per the cost of production than clean energy. So yes, producing enough clean energy to sustain food production, water supply and other critical needs for the world population it still is a problem.
  10. EtherealN - This is not a rant at you but one at NASA. WTF!!!! So we have to hide from aliens that are 10 light years away if they have the technology to travel that distance!!!! Yet we can detect them before they detect us with our technology???????? :lol: One of the reasons for the failure of SETI sited was that EMF comms dissipated much faster than previously calculated. Certain scientists claim that we would not be even able to detect EMF from intelligent life if they were in Proxima Centauri sytem! Now I must stop using wireless? If they are willing, able and intend to travel great distances to snuff out other life they sure as hell will allready be looking for said other life.:doh: Man me thinks these NASA geeks are overpaid. If we think that extra terrestrials are really a threat we should stop spending money on looking for the f@#%ers and start spending more money on the defense industry. Or maybe we should send them a long message (Simple Hi, decription and question.) and ask them how we can produce clean energy. And wait twenty years (For the suckers that are 10 ly away.)........ We are in danger of destroing our planet, we need relatively slow rockets to travel through space. Now we assume other life have to play by the same rules? NASA are being blinded by the paradigms they live in. Then there are the educated fools that say our thoughts will be transfered to computers and then we will life forever through them! No you idiot! If I have two identical knifes in a drawer in my kitchen it does not make make them both the same knife! If it was not enough that we have the possibility of aliens somewhere out there that are hostile to us and that we are destroying the ability of earth to sustain us, we have idiots that want to make machines that are self aware. Now what if their best interest is not ours? Let me predict the future for all. We will not be sailing across the universe in search of other life. The population of mankind will have crashed mainly because of unsustained food production. We would then revert back to a simple agrarian existance. Most of our technology would be lost. The reason for this is not because it is inevitable but because governments are doing next to nothing to solve our problems in regard to fossil fuels.:mad:
  11. Just logged in and decided to give my own two cents without reading the other posts. Certain special forces will be better than others on certain areas (Like Savannah or Arctic regions.). So the argument of who is the best overall is very problematic and complex. I got a question for all here. Which special forces unit do you want to face in combat! I do not want to face any! Hell I do not want to face anybody which uses competent police or infantry tactics!
  12. Amalahama: Read years ago (Back in the 80's, I think. But I am pretty sure.) that F15 and F14 can launch on multiple targets. That was before AIM120 entered service that I read it. Only recently (Couple of years ago.) on Lockon forums did I read that AIM7 can only be launched at one target at a time. Also, if you launch multiple AIM54s or AIM120s, they still have to be guided before they go active. But then again it is not just the seeker head that is the only responsible part of a missile for being guided by the launch aircraft. I do not know a lot about avionics. Saw Dogfights on History Channel where three MiG23s were downed (First Gulf War.) head on by F15s without the MiG23s doing any kind of evasive maneuvers. F15s launched one AIM7 each though, if I remember correctly. Also heard that MiG23 have to shut off RWR when it uses its radar. So situation could have been caused by other things than missiles being launched in TWS mode. Basically what I know about the subject is too limited to make a decision. But then I have to assume that AIM7 can only be launched one at a time and not in TWS mode; because I can not find any hard evidence for what I have read in a “coffee table book.”.:huh:
  13. Thanks. Thought that with "additional", he meant launch warnings for two different situations. Then (In my opinion.); an aircraft that can launch in TWS mode armed with AIM7 Sparrows (Not to mention AIM120s.) is a very frightning oponent. If you do not see smoke trails (Because motors have burned out.) you will fly right into the damn things! Unless of course, if you treat any aircraft that is within launch range as if it has launched on you.
  14. Suhoj27 - Thank you for the info. So if I understand you correctly; the Russian RWR gives a warning if a radar, that is illuminating a MiG29, changes from TWS to STT mode or if the illuminating radar reaches a certain signal strength (I.e. range.). To me it sound like a good concept seeing that aircraft like the F15 can launch missiles in TWS mode.
  15. Good one. Have never played online before, so I would love to very soon. Think I should play more in the mean time to get better at this sim.:D
  16. Ok that was quick. Thanks a million!:thumbup:
  17. I have had Windows XP for my operating system for quite some time now. I want to upgarde to Windows 7. But I have Lock on 1.02 and Black Shark (DVD). a) Can I run the original Lock On in Win 7? b) Do I have to do anything special for Black Shark except Deactivate - Reactivate? Looking forward to buy FC 2.0 and DCS A10 but both on dvd. If any body can give me advice on these matters I would greatly appreciate it. Thank You
  18. Hello. I have read through the activation and deactivation guide but I am uncertain about a what I want to do. Basically I want to format and repartition my whole computer and so that Black Shark will be installed on a completely diffrent partition as Windows XP. Firstly I want to defrag the emty partition and then install Black Shark before I install any thing else. So now that you know what I want to do, I want to know if I can just deactivate Black Shark and reactivate after I have reinstalled it or do I have to rather use one of my activations? Thank You. FanBoy. :megalol:
  19. Microsoft Flight simulator is not realy my cup of tea. Only interested in military sims. I don't care if it is a tank sim or whatever as long as it is a military sim. Next as realistic as possible. So I have always found Microsoft Flight Simulators as boring. I have Century of Flight and I must say that I like the training documentation you get on the cds. The same can not be said of Combat Flight Sim2 and before IL2 was the WWII I played (CFS 2 is a very good sim.).
  20. I started out on F19 (Either 1989 or 1990). But Chuck Yeager's Air Combat was the one that taught me how to dogfight. That was the first real simulator that I played. The greats to me was Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Janes Longbow, Janes F18, DID EF2000, DID F22, EAW, IL2 and of course LOMAC. Haven't played Flaming Cliffs, Black Shark or Falcon 4 yet. :mad:
  21. Thank you. But I meant converting other tracks (If at all possible.). If I could remember corectly, the post showed how one could edit a track from any sim (Like IL2 or Falcon 4.) with wordpad to turn it into an ACMI file.
  22. I do not know if this is the right place to ask this question; but I need help from the forum members. A while back I read a post of how you can tun LOMAC tracts in to ACMI tracts. I saved it to my computer. Yet now I can not find it! I need help! Can somebody just point me in the right direction please. It is said in the post that one can even change IL2 tracts into ACMI tracts (I think.).:poster_oops:
×
×
  • Create New...