All right why was I modded down? I wasn't bashing Macs, and I wasn't insulting Mr. Meyer. Macs have great GUI's and usually Mac users care about efficient interface design a lot. If you've ever tried X-Plane you'd notice that the interface is very un-Mac like, not only because it doesn't use Aqua but also because it doesn't follow Apple user interface guidelines. I'm not saying Apple's way of UI design is the only way either- all I'm saying is that Austin Meyer doesn't seem to be a typical diehard Mac user- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Why the hell can't people tolerate it being called both? Steel Beasts is a game made by eSim Games. It is also used by the U.S. Army for training, and Steel Beasts 2 is being developed in close contact with the the U.S. Army to make it even more suitable for training. Tons of people use it as a game, and the U.S. Army uses it as a sim. And I'm sure lots of cadets use it as both.
FlightGear is designed to simulate more than just piston aircraft "accurately", though accuracy is infinitely arguable. FlightGear supports multiple types of aerodynamics models, including LaRCsim (developed at the NASA Langley Research Center), JSBSim, and YASim, the latter of which simulates performance based on aircraft 3d geometry, much like X-Plane's flight model.
A flight model developed by UIUC is also supported which is capable of modeling nonlinear aerodynamics.
This is not a troll, but considering the fact that Austin Meyer is a hardcore Mac user, I find it surprising that he does not focus that much on GUI issues.
X-Plane is only approved by the FAA when combined with a full motion platform. Flying X-Plane on your computer while sitting at your desk is not certifiable as training.
It's important to note though that building a 3d model for X-Plane is not the same as building one for MSFS. In X-Plane, the 3d model's shape is defined by the specifications set using the Plane Maker tool. For example, you type in a value for wingspan, and the wingspan of the model changes. In this way is the 3d shape each aircraft defined.
This is much more difficult (in my opinion) than modeling an aircraft in a 3d graphics package such as Maya or 3ds max, though it is necessary for the way X-Plane calculates flight models.
If you're able to get to the U.S. within 3 weeks: QuakeCon. The world's largest lanparty for a legendary game and the games powered by its engine. Meet the id software folks, attend workshops and of course play games.
Some high-end video editing software (Flame, Inferno) is only available on Irix. SGI boxes are still used requently for high end 3d graphics as well (Alias|wavefront still has an Irix version of Maya, though of course A|w is a subsidiary of SGI).
Especially true with some of the nForce2 motherboards with the SoundStorm audio solution. While the motherboards may seem expensive ($120-$140), it ends up saving you some cash because you don't need to buy a sound card for excellent audio quality.
Lipitor, the anti-cholesterol medicine, costs about
20 times as much as gold, based on late-2002 prices from www.drugstore.com. Prilosec, used to treat ulcers and gastric reflux, costs 35 times as much. Prevacid, used for the same purposes, costs 25 times more.
Zocor, an anti-cholesterol medicine, is worth 33 times its weight in gold.
Yes, it could easily be used to spy on citizens. Who cares though? They already can spy quite easily on normal people without this system. What this system is ideal for is the tracking of hundreds of individuals in a small area, something not necessary for the kind of "big brother" activity people are wary of. For that, all that's needed are a couple of white vans with FBI agents inside.
Yes, the USAF and DARPA have been interested in hypersonic bombers for a long time. Hence the X-15 hypersonic test aircraft and the NASA X-43 hypersonic ramjet test aircraft. The stunning success of the SR-71 coupled with the shootdown of the F-117 over Serbia has soured the USAF's opinion of stealth slightly in favor of higher speeds for avoiding air defenses.
That is why the "Future Strike Aircraft" (which shall probably be designated "B-3") will be relying on high speed rather than purely signature reduction.
*Note that the FSA will not be hypersonic, it will cruise at 2-4 Mach.
"1. Cost: Although each plane is more expensive to build then their counterparts today, the US would not need forward bases for air power. These bases are far more expensive to maintain than the aircraft are to buy. In addition, Air bases cause a lot of concern for the country they are in, as well as an increased risk to those who need to guard."
For strike missions, the US already does not need forward airbases because of mid air refueling (B-2's flew from Whiteman AFB in Missouri to bomb Iraq). In fact with the entirety of US airpower there is beginning a trend of using "virtual" airbases, where there would only be meager remote AFB's maintained, which would then be rapidly beefed up in times of war. Forward air bases aren't much of a concern with the flexibility already inherent in airpower.
"2. The Minutemen are missiles. ICBM's at that. The political and social implications of suddenly firing lots of those is incredible. In addition, these are not accurate weapons. With a nuclear payload, 10 miles off target is close enough. Not so with munitions they currently are using. Launching a Nuclear weapon is not an option."
Errors in this pointed out by others. Passing...
"3. These planes won't be in use until at least 2025. War will not be the same come that time. War is a move on or move out type of business."
True, and fairly obvious.
"4. What is going to shoot these down? Hypersonic Missiles? A plane this fast has got to have tremendous spy potential. Remember the U2? In addition, these could be used to take out ICBM's, as they would be much faster."
Yes, hypersonic missiles. There are missiles developed already which cruise at Mach 4 (the old AIM-54 Phoenix did Mach 3, the Matra Meteor and BAE BVRAAM can both do Mach 4), and the SA-12B and PAC-3 both reportedly launch missiles capable of Mach 5. By 2025, it's very conceivable that missiles reaching in excess of Mach 7 will be widely available. Keep in mind missiles have always been far faster than aircraft (Mach 3 AIM-54 paired with a Mach 1.9 F-14 in the '70s). Given that info, these missiles would be more suited for taking out ICBM's than those hypersonic aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
All right why was I modded down? I wasn't bashing Macs, and I wasn't insulting Mr. Meyer. Macs have great GUI's and usually Mac users care about efficient interface design a lot. If you've ever tried X-Plane you'd notice that the interface is very un-Mac like, not only because it doesn't use Aqua but also because it doesn't follow Apple user interface guidelines. I'm not saying Apple's way of UI design is the only way either- all I'm saying is that Austin Meyer doesn't seem to be a typical diehard Mac user- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Why the hell can't people tolerate it being called both? Steel Beasts is a game made by eSim Games. It is also used by the U.S. Army for training, and Steel Beasts 2 is being developed in close contact with the the U.S. Army to make it even more suitable for training. Tons of people use it as a game, and the U.S. Army uses it as a sim. And I'm sure lots of cadets use it as both.
X-Plane, unlike Orbiter, does not simulate any type of orbital flight though.
This is why the FAA only approves X-Plane for training when used with a motion platform.
FlightGear is designed to simulate more than just piston aircraft "accurately", though accuracy is infinitely arguable. FlightGear supports multiple types of aerodynamics models, including LaRCsim (developed at the NASA Langley Research Center), JSBSim, and YASim, the latter of which simulates performance based on aircraft 3d geometry, much like X-Plane's flight model.
A flight model developed by UIUC is also supported which is capable of modeling nonlinear aerodynamics.
This is not a troll, but considering the fact that Austin Meyer is a hardcore Mac user, I find it surprising that he does not focus that much on GUI issues.
X-Plane is only approved by the FAA when combined with a full motion platform. Flying X-Plane on your computer while sitting at your desk is not certifiable as training.
It's important to note though that building a 3d model for X-Plane is not the same as building one for MSFS. In X-Plane, the 3d model's shape is defined by the specifications set using the Plane Maker tool. For example, you type in a value for wingspan, and the wingspan of the model changes. In this way is the 3d shape each aircraft defined.
This is much more difficult (in my opinion) than modeling an aircraft in a 3d graphics package such as Maya or 3ds max, though it is necessary for the way X-Plane calculates flight models.
If you're able to get to the U.S. within 3 weeks: QuakeCon. The world's largest lanparty for a legendary game and the games powered by its engine. Meet the id software folks, attend workshops and of course play games.
Can someone explain what exactly Quake 4 is?
It is a computer game.
I think this is a great idea actually.
Some of us really like the good trolls.
Evidence of being a fraud.
This guy's a troll.
I figured out how to access the word count in OpenOffice after spending about 15 seconds in the documentation.
Some high-end video editing software (Flame, Inferno) is only available on Irix. SGI boxes are still used requently for high end 3d graphics as well (Alias|wavefront still has an Irix version of Maya, though of course A|w is a subsidiary of SGI).
If there were ever a story to serve as the definitive example of slashdot nerdiness, this is it.
I'm sure you can find numerous Americans who claim to repeatedly defeat Canadian units in naval exercises as well.
In the military, hearsay and exaggeration is quite common.
It's spelled "missile".
There is no naval operations capable helicopter equipped with an air to air radar.
The energy weapon would lack the accuracy and strength to damage an ICBM flying at 250,000 feet.
The repulsor electromagnetic cats do not work on the same principle as rail guns.
Or maybe the Beyerdynamic DT250-80's? They are quite a bit warmer than the SR-80's which some might prefer for more moody gaming.
Especially true with some of the nForce2 motherboards with the SoundStorm audio solution. While the motherboards may seem expensive ($120-$140), it ends up saving you some cash because you don't need to buy a sound card for excellent audio quality.
3) Then try a double blind A-B test.
They sound the same.
Yes, it could easily be used to spy on citizens. Who cares though? They already can spy quite easily on normal people without this system. What this system is ideal for is the tracking of hundreds of individuals in a small area, something not necessary for the kind of "big brother" activity people are wary of. For that, all that's needed are a couple of white vans with FBI agents inside.
Yes, the USAF and DARPA have been interested in hypersonic bombers for a long time. Hence the X-15 hypersonic test aircraft and the NASA X-43 hypersonic ramjet test aircraft. The stunning success of the SR-71 coupled with the shootdown of the F-117 over Serbia has soured the USAF's opinion of stealth slightly in favor of higher speeds for avoiding air defenses.
That is why the "Future Strike Aircraft" (which shall probably be designated "B-3") will be relying on high speed rather than purely signature reduction.
*Note that the FSA will not be hypersonic, it will cruise at 2-4 Mach.
Wait, wasn't this supposed to happen 15 years ago?
"1. Cost: Although each plane is more expensive to build then their counterparts today, the US would not need forward bases for air power. These bases are far more expensive to maintain than the aircraft are to buy. In addition, Air bases cause a lot of concern for the country they are in, as well as an increased risk to those who need to guard."
For strike missions, the US already does not need forward airbases because of mid air refueling (B-2's flew from Whiteman AFB in Missouri to bomb Iraq). In fact with the entirety of US airpower there is beginning a trend of using "virtual" airbases, where there would only be meager remote AFB's maintained, which would then be rapidly beefed up in times of war. Forward air bases aren't much of a concern with the flexibility already inherent in airpower.
"2. The Minutemen are missiles. ICBM's at that. The political and social implications of suddenly firing lots of those is incredible. In addition, these are not accurate weapons. With a nuclear payload, 10 miles off target is close enough. Not so with munitions they currently are using. Launching a Nuclear weapon is not an option."
Errors in this pointed out by others. Passing...
"3. These planes won't be in use until at least 2025. War will not be the same come that time. War is a move on or move out type of business."
True, and fairly obvious.
"4. What is going to shoot these down? Hypersonic Missiles? A plane this fast has got to have tremendous spy potential. Remember the U2? In addition, these could be used to take out ICBM's, as they would be much faster."
Yes, hypersonic missiles. There are missiles developed already which cruise at Mach 4 (the old AIM-54 Phoenix did Mach 3, the Matra Meteor and BAE BVRAAM can both do Mach 4), and the SA-12B and PAC-3 both reportedly launch missiles capable of Mach 5. By 2025, it's very conceivable that missiles reaching in excess of Mach 7 will be widely available. Keep in mind missiles have always been far faster than aircraft (Mach 3 AIM-54 paired with a Mach 1.9 F-14 in the '70s). Given that info, these missiles would be more suited for taking out ICBM's than those hypersonic aircraft.