No, the EA-6 is still in squadron service…

Then, actually we agree. Perhaps I didn’t word it well enough, and confused you.

A-6 Intruder – Replaced
EA-6 Prowler – Still in service

is what I meant.

A few years ago, Mark12 pointed me at a Microsoft Powertoy, Image resizer.

Go to Microsoft website, and look for Powertoys. Install Image resizer.

A right click on said picture will include ‘Resize picture’ in the menu, and then you have the option to make it one of three sizes – all useful for web publishing.

Bruce

Just a minor point about this tool. While it will reduce the file size because of the general reduction in physical dimensions, it doesn’t allow you to manipulate the resolution.

While in most cases that is highly desirable, if you have limited bandwidth larger filesizes can waste it unnecessarily.

So it is a good idea to reduce physical dimensions anyway, but reducing filesize while there is no noticeable difference in image quality, can help many of those people wanting to see your pictures.

For viewing on the Internet, it is a good idea to reduce the filesize, so that they cannot be enlarged or are of insufficient quality for publication in magazines, etc., without your express permission and access to the original image. This is a tactic I tend to use – which is why I often get castigated for poor image quality. I produce my images to be best viewed at the physical sizes I dictate, and they do not like being enlarged further (zoomed). When they are zoomed for intense inspection or publication, they tend to look awful.

Another point is that I do not know whether that tool allows you to trim (or “crop”) the image to give the most pleasing picture, or a picture that fits your particular needs.

I tend to crop my images so that they will completely fill my desktop at 1280×768 for my own use, and this means trimming the edges.

For showing on the Internet I will usually resize the image again, down to a maximum 744 pixels wide, maintaining the aspect ratio of 16:9.

I think it will go down to iso 60, try fastest sp setting at that.

But that usually only affects grain/noise – which should still be acceptable at iso 200.

Register on the Myfuji website and discuss in forums there.

You did say you were using sharp setting. Maybe it needs calibrating?

S9600 is capable of good shots, but not in as carefree a manner as a high fps dslr.

Trick – Use a uv filter & prepare for single shots by half depressing shutter until absolutely ready to complete. If on full zoom back off a smidgeon.

Dont over enlarge images beyond, say 2:1 – every digital picture will break up into pixels eventually, on any camera. Even 1:1 is pushing it for some.

I think the terrain was modelled somewhere in England?

I believe it was Wales and Scotland – I remember being asked to overfly the Severn Bridge.

I successfully avoided the giant martian spider.

I think there were nine massive computers being used. Of course, this was at just about the advent of the microprocessor. We’re talking 1975 or so, 37 years ago.

Does anyone have any pictures of it?

The trick is NOT to upload from Flikr, but to use the IMG tag and supply the URL at which the picture resides.

What you seem to have tried to do is to try to upload with the “Manage Attachments” button from another website (Flikr), which can’t be done.

The Insert IMG tag is the little yellow box with black mountain & sun.

You can add as many pictures as you like then.

There is a limit to the total number of images that will be stored by the Flypast Forum’s server on your behalf. If you post too many, you’ll be asked to delete older ones to make some room.

Good luck, and remember to look on the Flikr page for that URL.

It is explained in greater detail if you Click Here!

I can see no reason why this wouldn’t be possible.

But for mass/home production you might have difficult with the Health and Safety people.

I remember a flight sim with pretty much full motion in the basement of the Trocadero (Piccadilly). The cockpit seat was encased in a gimbal arrangement, which enabled the seat to be spun through huge degrees of rotation in any direction. It didn’t provide (obviously) any vertical sensations, however.

I did fly the Jaguar simulator at RAF Lossiemouth in the mid 70’s, and that was a full cockpit on massive hydraulic rams – but visuals were limited to a monitor sitting in the front windshield. Such a design would give the H&S directorate kitten constipation in an unregulated environment.

But otherwise the technology resides in an everyday PC these days to provide the various inputs and resulting output instructions.

If a “domestic” design could pass their rigorous inspections, and the cost could be kept to a sensible limit (say that of an expensive armchair) I’d be one of the first to go and buy a new piggie in which to stash the required cash!

Aside from the ubiquitous fairground attractions, I don’t think a real full motion sim would be worthwhile.

What would be more interesting is some device that could fool your senses, without actually moving you at all. Even then, it would probably make you so dizzy, that if you weren’t properly restrained when someone comes calling, you’d most likely stumble around like someone drunk while trying to reach the front door.

It might be okay for an airline simulator, but a fully aerobatic fighter or sports plane would be somewhat more difficult to consider.

Would that be girl/bloke or takeaway.

😉
Language lesson 😀