Search results

Check this: http://punkr.de/ts-noise-download All functions you wanted, program is freeware.

Why? They would, but slow and low... Seriously, this is anyway needed to limit fantasy. Not every addon developer can be a physicist - and we get TX, which is more maneuverable than a MiG-29, HyperDart, not flyable on joystick and XR2 with small brakes increasing Cx 6-10 times. So we need some...

Unfortunately, facts are that people trying to argue on such topics in most cases are either ignorant either childish - not talking of even more frequent psychiatric cases. Forums just aren't a place to talk about serious questions.

XFLR only applies to low Re and low mach - even Mach 0.8 will give inconsistent results. I'm currently examinating possibilities of using professional CFD software for Orbiter simulation. Most of them support automatization - the only problem is their cost (and low accessibility of cracks). If...

Are you qualified enough to state that?.. And even more - the discovery states just that simple amines are created simplier, than it was thought. This actually counters the seeder's theory, not proofs. All we've got is just another I-wanna-believe journalist... There's no worse thing than a...

There was at least one problem with for statement in MSVC2003, fixed in 2005: the variable declaration like for (int i=0;...;...) was considered by compiler to be outside the for cycle, and this trick is used in Orbiter code (at least in ShuttlePB SDK example source) So there may be a problem...

Try to: 1.Replace ++it with it++ (unlikely, but some compilers suffer from it) 2.Output the contents of "Fired" vector for each class e.g. on the vessel HUD. After that the problem should be more clear.

Cx and Cy (and their ratio correspondingly) don't directly depend on pressure, they depend on Mach number, that's why it's widely used. You need to derive explicit functions Cx = f(AoA, Mach) and Cy = g(AoA, Mach) - they will show you everything, without it you'll not get anything but forum...

No. There's such a thing called "aerodynamic polar line". Here's an example for a small plane: Cy is lift coefficient, C = Cx - drag coefficient. At 4deg AOA here you have maximum aerodynamic efficiency, at 16deg. (?) - maximum lift. Any real aircraft design begins with creating such diagram...

It's a half of clap?..

Every one of the "mystification busters" will tell you the same. Even this one: I've warned ;)

Guys, don't you seem to yourself like the discussed "theorist" freaks?.. They reject the science the same way. Just a friendly reminder ;)

Read again: The number of stars is countable. Not finite. Not uncountable.

It's easily solved by mathematic analysis method. Just imagine yourself in an infinite cubic grid of point light sources, in a centre of one of the cubes. You've got non-enumerable number of directions total - and just numerable - that is pointing to one on more stars - so the sky will be dark...

Any news?..

That's an ignorant saying. Mir IRL has 51.6 deg. inclination, and there were at least two heavy military satellites going >135deg.

Can you transfer texture management to InitModule/Exit module (and share it between ships)?

Vertical Tough (Occasionally) Landing

That ones will be good too. Though radio-guided missiles are preferred. Thanks for the pointing on AMRAAM, BTW. It's an AIM-120A or B and quite poly overloaded, but will suit for testing.

Long story short - I'm currently working on another attempt to implement combat in Orbiter. Will it be successful ir not, I'll try not to give unrealizable promises. However, for the moment I'd highly appreciate a little help - as I'm not any (except of "no way to be") kind of modeller. Can...