Military AI Works

Hmmm. Whilst I understand what you are saying, one question comes to mind. Do you do your best stuff when nagged? I am guessing not.
Nobody ever complains about their other half nagging them.

Firebird wrote: Nobody ever complains about their other half nagging them.

At least not to their face. . . . . . . If they've learned anything about domestic tranquility.

I never said anybody complained about nagging .

Firebird wrote: Do you do your best stuff when nagged? I am guessing not.

Well, I do work on stuff more when I noticed there is a interest in it. I saw alot of interest in my Tyndall and Eglin. Alot of "what's going on with the scenery" question. It actually made me work on it more. When I posted pics of Macdill, there wasn't as much interest in that base. I found that I did not work on that base as much as Tyndall and Eglin, mainly because of technical FS issues and lack of time, but I'd be lying if I said the lack of interest didnt effect my motivation.

I too don't mind the occasional nag in respect of my work, but what annoyed me with this one was 2-fold. That a) that it came only 6 days after my last update, with New Year in between and b) other people are contributing to the packages that might have different priorities, particularly at this time of year and quite rightly so.

As it happens, you can see what Hartwig has been up to elsewhere on the forum with Pax River, which is home to the VX-1 and VX-20 P-8s. John B has also been wrestling with an AFCAD bug for RAAF Edinburgh for the Australian P-8s and also working with John T to replace a texture for one of the scenery objects. Like all the other contributors I'm grateful for whatever time they can spend doing this.

Rest assured, I'll drop what I'm doing currently and get the packages out as soon as I have these final elements.

John

I think maybe the best way to sum up here is that some people prefer some verbal assistance to complete their endeavours and some don't.
I think that generally speaking most don't and that should be respected. However, those that perform better with the assistance should state that they are amenable to 'encouragement' when they post about their project intentions.

I think that this should be acceptable to every taste.

how it's coming along John

Andy,
I feel that John has said in the nicest possible way that he is waiting for other contributors to complete their components. The next announcement after that will be 'here it is go and get it'.

OFF TOPIC
I just noticed I hit number 9999. I obvious talk too much.

10,000 posts...... Still a long ways to go my friend!

okay i'll try to wait

John, take your time and do the great job you have always done. I have enjoyed the stuff you have put out, and know that you invest alot of time in it. It's worth the wait to see something like this flying on FS!!!

I'm just finishing the custom scenery. It's detailed hence the time it's taken to get it right.

VulcanDriver wrote: ↑17 Jan 2017, 08:22 I'm just finishing the custom scenery. It's detailed hence the time it's taken to get it right.

Scenery for what?

andypoppens wrote: ↑17 Jan 2017, 21:13 Scenery for what?

Scroll back up a little and you will find out for yourself. The scope of this project has been discussed in some detail right here in this thread.

SeanG

Why are they replacing p-3 with the p-8

andypoppens wrote: ↑17 Jan 2017, 22:28 Why are they replacing p-3 with the p-8

Why are Volskwagen replacing the old Coccinelle by New Golf ? It's the same. P-3 are old aircraft. P-8 are new generation, with new engines, new avionics

TheFoufure wrote: ↑17 Jan 2017, 22:41

andypoppens wrote: ↑17 Jan 2017, 22:28 Why are they replacing p-3 with the p-8

Why are Volskwagen replacing the old Coccinelle by New Golf ? It's the same. P-3 are old aircraft. P-8 are new generation, with new engines, new avionics

I just feel like new avionics consisting of some stupid flight management system take away all the fun of flying don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing the p-8 I'm just saying I feel like new avionics take away all the fun of flying

Because in the eyes of the US Navy, you are not being paid by the tax payers to "fly for the fun of it". You are there to accomplish and execute a mission efficiently as possible. New nav system's help make this possible. Like or not.

The P-3 is based on the Lockheed L188 Electra airliner. You know who still flies the Electra? Essentially nobody. The P-3's are old. Airframes are worn out, mechanical and electrical gremlins are everywhere. Piecemeal upgrades to systems and capabilities has lead to an inefficient design with difficult maintenance.

It was time to start fresh. A new design which fully incorporates modern technology and a focus on the missions and capabilities of today. A more comfortable aircraft which is much more efficient to maintain and easier to acquire spare parts. Lower operating costs and a higher mission readiness rate are both big pluses as well.

We can be nostalgic for the past, but it is time to move on from the P-3.

Chris

Alright I get it let's move on now

andypoppens wrote: ↑20 Jan 2017, 02:21 Alright I get it let's move on now

And further more......