AVS Video Editor 7.1.2.262 Patch (menin) 64 Bit
Myong Killings
I have been trying to start a basic mission using the Navada map by creating 4 / 5 basic waypoints. I place my aircraft on the runway as "takeoff" and when I add my first waypoint, the location where the aircraft is taking off is automatically designated as SP. What does "SP" mean? Does it stand for "Starting Point"? In many tutorials I have watched, there is no "SP", but a "0" as the starting point. Also, the last point always comes up as DP > Destination Point? (I am just guessing here). And if "DP" = Destination Point, the editor won't allow me to qualify it as a "landing" point, so I am not sure I am closing the loop on a complete linear mission.
Finally, is there a tutorial, or some kind of text that explains how to input the conditions mentioned in the CDS Manual for a more immersive experience? I am not familiar with the script language, not sure how to enjoy that part of the editor without any clear guidance.
I'm pretty sure you got it right: Starting Point and Destination Point. A little further down you would select what type of waypoint it is. See image for detail. This is where you would make it a landing point. See DCS User Manual 2020 page 192.
Thank you for your question. The "seeking expert advice" status usually means that the either the paper is being reviewed by a peer reviewer or the editor-in-chief is in the process of finding a peer revewer for your manuscript.
We all have our own levels of editing focus. This weekend I was at a monthly Pacific Northwest Writers meeting, and the fellow beside me said he never wakes up in the middle of the night to fix a sentence. Lucky for him. He sleeps through the night.
Perhaps the greatest reward of self-editing, though, is gaining more control over your own work. When you can spot and correct most of the issues yourself before handing over your manuscript, you retain more autonomy over the final product. As an author, improving your manuscript through self-editing helps establish trust with your editor that you understand the common pitfalls writers fall into and are ready to think critically about your own work.
Self-editing brings numerous benefits that can pay dividends when your work is ready for publication. The initial investment of time and effort in editing your own manuscript allows for a smoother process and helps cultivate valuable writerly skills for future projects.
Before bringing on an editor to polish your novel or nonfiction manuscript, you can save time and money by reviewing the draft to catch and correct many simple errors that tend to slip through on first drafts.
The following outline provides a systematic approach for you to self-edit your manuscript, focusing on improving clarity, conciseness, and consistency before an editor can offer higher-level editorial guidance.
By making these types of targeted changes, you can transform flat, dull prose into writing that comes alive on the page. Start with a search for -ly words, weak pronouns, and filler phrases, then brainstorm stronger verbs, nouns, and specific details to replace the vague terminology in your draft.
Editing your writing can be daunting, but remembering that your manuscript deserves your careful attention and best efforts can help motivate you through the process. Before an editor sees your work, you owe it to yourself to:
A pcb is a 3-dimensional object with different materials stacked on top of each other.
If a designer talks about designing a 2 layer board then they typically mean that this board has two copper layers. A 4 layer board has 4 copper layers and so on. In addition to these copper layers there are other technical and documentation layers available.
A good introductory read is this post by @dchisholm : Any way to make the screen more understandable?
The use of the edge cut layer in footprints can result in problems. As there is no snapping for the drawing tool other then to the grid this might result in polygons that are not closed.
This layer is unsupported by the footprint editor (KiCad 5 and earlier). There is no way to define drawings on that layer from within it. KiCad 4 even moved drawings on that layer to another layer when opening it in the footprint editor. This non feature has luckily been removed from version 5. More details about edge cut support see this wishlist bug
Many thanks for your interesting and provocative paper. I have received a referee report on your piece, and I have read it myself. There are certainly many smart things in the piece, but ultimately, I think it is more appropriate for a more specialized journal. Your points are often well-taken, but really didn't convince me, or the referee, to question the standard interpretation of the data. I could imagine a paper on similarity relations which convincingly made the case for this approach being acceptable to us, but this side of the current paper is not really worked out.
I checked "provocative" in other dictionaries. Some include another meaning like "thought-provoking", but some do not. So I am looking for the true definition of "provocative". Here, does "provocative" mean "though-provoking" by "causing anger"?
I read the rejection letter to mean: You are attacking the current consensus, and this causes me (the editor and the putative reader) to think. But you did not convince me in your approach, so, I am not willing to give you a platform. The paper has merits and should be published, but elsewhere.
Provocative in this circumstances means something like "rocking the boat". As strong claims demand strong evidence, a rejection for this type of paper is more likely. The editor seems to think that the validation is too thin. Some rocking the boat is necessary for progress, but its value should be determined by specialists, who will be able to reassess what the general public in the field is not apt to do.
I do not know the case nor the field, nor the type of journal, but this is not a bad rejection letter. It gives a clear path forward: Make your case to the specialists first or support strong claims with strong evidence.
No, the editor is not implying that the article angered them. In academia, provocative is usually used with a positive connotation (as in: thought-provoking, something that any academic article strives to be). Read the context of the email carefully - the editor found your article to be "interesting and provocative".
Unfortunately, the editor goes on to say that "criticism of existing approaches are best sent to more specialised outlets". This is a bit dubious by itself, but should probably be understood in combination with "really didn't convince me, or the reviewer" - as in, the editor felt that your paper made some good arguments, but not sufficiently convincing to warrant acceptance at this (presumably fairly widely read?) general journal.
As @tschwartz points out, the term "provocative" in this context is not meant to be taken negatively. The editor finds the arguments in the paper to be thought-provoking, intriguing, meritorious, interesting etc. but not substantive enough to warrant publication in a journal with a general scope since they only point out some flaws in existing methods without proposing a different framework. In general, it would be surprising to me to hear of an editor using the term in to express disapproval of a paper in a discussion with the author.
This is standard "praise before you criticize" politeness. As others have said, "provocative" is a positive in this academic context, especially paired with "interesting". You could rewrite this sentence "your paper is interesting and made me think". However, this is just standard praise. It's meant to prepare to let someone down lightly. Do not worry more about the use of this word "provocative", it has nothing to do with why the paper has been rejected.
More standard praise ("many smart things"), followed by the let-down "more appropriate for a more specialized journal"; this means "your paper isn't important/remarkable/impactful enough for this journal".
It sounds like the paper is critiquing the standard interpretations/analysis procedures in other papers. The editor feels that while those critiques have merit, they wouldn't impact the conclusions of the standard procedure enough to be paradigm-shifting. I don't think it's that more is needed to convince the editor that the critiques are correct, but rather that they aren't convinced the critiques are impactful. One might consider the aphorism "all models are wrong, but some are useful": it may be that the paper successfully shows that someone else's model is wrong in some way, but if it hasn't shown that their model isn't useful or that the alternative approach is more useful, then it just isn't that impactful.
Same as above: the editor is saying that if the paper made a better case for the proposed approach being convincingly better, that paper might be acceptable. As a mere critique of existing work, it isn't.
Translation: send this to a specialized journal concerned with the specifics of the methodology in this area. The paper is not being rejected because it's wrong, but because it isn't sufficiently interesting. It's not appropriate to send detailed nit-picky critiques to a journal the principally publishes work that advances the field substantially.
There are enough good answers here already explaining that the word "provocative" is not negative in this context and, if anything, is positive. To those answers I would just like to add that this editor's use of the word "provocative" is in line with the dictionary definition you quote (emphasis mine):
When a paper argues against the status quo of a research field, it is likely to cause strong reactions - not particularly annoyance or anger, but intrigue and intense debate. The paper puts more at stake than a typical paper does, it may imply that a lot of previous research done by other people is flawed in some way, and that may provoke those other researchers to defend the value of their work.
Note that while causing annoyance or anger would be negative, causing a "strong reaction" in general need not be. So to directly answer your question, you have misinterpreted the definition of "provocative" by (it seems) assuming that "another strong reaction" means "another strong negative reaction". It doesn't have to, and here it doesn't.
b1e95dc632