New DLC - AI Plane Pack

[Wrench 9,471]

104c:

 

]Nose [

ShowFromCockpit=TRUE

 

cockpit ini: (postion is still off a few cm -- one may need to make changes forward in 0.05 increments, literally inching it forward. oth, this positiong is DAMN close)

 

Position=0.00,5.70,0.61

 

see screenshots thread, page 111 for basic in cockpit views

[+russouk2004 6,951]

ive a sneaky feeling the a\c were maybe new dlc,tk given up with this and releases them all as ai dlc and patch too.?...seems odd they are all animated etc as flyable from the off,minus of course the cockpits etc,which are easily added.

[+gerwin 450]

On the other hand F-104 is probably AI only because of lockheed licensing problems. Similar to the C-130, which was removed from the game years ago.

And Non-IDF Avia S-99 and S-199 are very much red side: Is there any stock flyable which is red side by default? Same for the Egyptian Mirages.

Edited June 2, 2013 by gerwin

[Wrench 9,471]

Is there any stock flyable which is red side by default?

 

sf2i meteor f8, albit not fully Red by default, but "ExportedToEnemy=TRUE"

 

the s-199 has this also (i guess the IDF is enemy, when looked from the Arab airforces side)

[MigBuster 2,861]

Hunter 59/70/73

[+Brain32 265]

the s-199 has this also (i guess the IDF is enemy, when looked from the Arab airforces side)

Nope it has that entry because fromer Czechoslovakia was actually the main operator of that aircraft

[Wilches 1,156]

I made it! To show the F-104C probe without the windshield frame type this on _DATA,INI:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[AircraftData]

DestroyedModel=F-104_Destroyed.LOD

DestroyedEffect=VehicleFireEffect

EmptyMass=5973.8

EmptyInertia=64205.6,3887.8,65364.5

ReferenceArea=18.22

ReferenceSpan=6.69

ReferenceChord=2.91

CGPosition=0.00,1.00,0.00

Component[001]=Fuselage

Component[002]=Nose

Component[003]=LeftWing

Component[004]=RightWing

Component[005]=VertTail

Component[006]=Tailplane

Component[007]=canopy_front_top

Component[008]=canopy_mid_outer

Component[009]=canopy_mid_inner

Component[010]=2canopy_inner

Component[011]=cockpit

 

[canopy_front_top]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=canopy_front_top

ShowFromCockpit=FALSE

 

[canopy_mid_outer]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=canopy_mid_outer

ShowFromCockpit=FALSE

 

[canopy_mid_inner]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=canopy_mid_inner

ShowFromCockpit=FALSE

 

[2canopy_inner]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=2canopy_inner

ShowFromCockpit=FALSE

 

[cockpit]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=cockpit

ShowFromCockpit=FALSE

 

[Fuselage]

ModelNodeName=Fuselage

ShowFromCockpit=TRUE <-----

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

On _COCKPIT.INI:

 

Position=0.00,5.52,0.545

 

This POV exacty fits with the 3d windshield.

Hope this helps. Cheers!

[dsawan 613]

Hi, arthur. here is the aircraft data first part;. i added the dlc mirge iii0 pit but still not showing and changed the ini and folder name to MIRAGE5DE TW. thats all i did.

 

[AircraftData]

AircraftFullName=MIRAGE5DE TW

AircraftShortName=Mirage 5

AircraftDataFile=Mirage5DE_data.ini

LoadoutFile=Mirage5DE_Loadout.ini

CockpitDataFile=Mirage3OA_cockpit.INI

UserList=Mirage5DE_UserList.ini

[+SupGen 78]

104c:

 

]Nose [

ShowFromCockpit=TRUE

 

cockpit ini: (postion is still off a few cm -- one may need to make changes forward in 0.05 increments, literally inching it forward. oth, this positiong is DAMN close)

 

Position=0.00,5.70,0.61

 

see screenshots thread, page 111 for basic in cockpit views

 

I'm using this right now and it looks okay: Position=0.00,5.781,0.616

[arthur666 65]

Hi, arthur. here is the aircraft data first part;. i added the dlc mirge iii0 pit but still not showing and changed the ini and folder name to MIRAGE5DE TW. thats all i did.

 

[AircraftData]

AircraftFullName=MIRAGE5DE TW

AircraftShortName=Mirage 5

AircraftDataFile=Mirage5DE_data.ini

LoadoutFile=Mirage5DE_Loadout.ini

CockpitDataFile=Mirage3OA_cockpit.INI

UserList=Mirage5DE_UserList.ini

 

Did you try without renaming folder/ini?

 

 

On the other hand F-104 is probably AI only because of lockheed licensing problems. Similar to the C-130, which was removed from the game years ago.

And Non-IDF Avia S-99 and S-199 are very much red side: Is there any stock flyable which is red side by default? Same for the Egyptian Mirages.

I don't think that is true. All US military designations are in the public domain as they are technically owned by the people. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited June 2, 2013 by arthur666

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Cant we use the C-130 from the first gen game?!

[+gerwin 450]

I don't think that is true. All US military designations are in the public domain as they are technically owned by the people. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

There was dicussion about this, with the government saying it is taxpayers money and it should be free to use USAF shapes. Yet lockheed was, or still is, trying to get money. For example:

 

Source

Why is DJ Aerotech going to discontinue the P-38 and Electra?

In November 2001 we were approached by EMI, a company hired by Lockheed-Martin to administer their trademark licensing program for them, regarding our Roadkill Series P-38 kit. It is Lockheed-Martin's policy that ANYONE (no exceptions) must be properly licensed by them to legally make models of any of their aircraft, including the ancestor companies such as (but not limited to) Lockheed, Martin, General Dynamics, Convair, or Consolidated.

 

We had the choice of either discontinuing the P-38 kit, or obtaining a license. During the negotiations, we were told of various benefits to us that being license holders would include.

 

We decided to try it their way, and invest in a 3-year license. The cost was a token amount for them, although it was not a token amount for a tiny company like ours. Still, if the benefits outlined to us were real, it would be a worthwhile investment.

 

@76.IAP-Blackbird: Sure you can use the old C-130. I do.

[Wrench 9,471]

dswan:

use the Nesher statement.

M5s don't (for the most part) have a AI (air intercept) radar

 

[AircraftData]

AircraftFullName=Mirage 5DE

AircraftShortName=Mirage 5

AircraftDataFile=Mirage5DE_data.ini

LoadoutFile=Mirage5DE_Loadout.ini

UserList=Mirage5DE_UserList.ini

CockpitDataFile=Nesher_cockpit.INI

LoadoutImage=Nesher_loadout.TGA

HangarScreen=Nesher_hangar.JPG

LoadingScreen=Nesher_Loading.JPG

AvionicsDLL=Avionics60.DLL

AvionicsDataFilename=Nesher_avionics.INI

 

Nope it has that entry because fromer Czechoslovakia was actually the main operator of that aircraft

 

(smaks self on head)

 

dooh!!!

 

should've thought of that! I was more thinking about Blue users (IDF)

[arthur666 65]

dswan:

use the Nesher statement.

M5s don't (for the most part) have a AI (air intercept) radar

 

that's what I thought, but this is from wikipedia Mirage 5 page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_5

• Mirage 5DE : Single-seat radar-equipped fighter-bomber version for Libya.
  

Not sayin' it's 100% accurate, but I'm jus' sayin'

That's why I used the IIIO pit.

 

Seems like the lines between the III and the 5 get blurred quite a bit.

Edited June 3, 2013 by arthur666

[dsawan 613]

ok, will try

[+streakeagle 864]

ive a sneaky feeling the a\c were maybe new dlc,tk given up with this and releases them all as ai dlc and patch too.?...seems odd they are all animated etc as flyable from the off,minus of course the cockpits etc,which are easily added.

 

I think it is more a case of parallel development: the mobile games added a lot of aircraft that were not in the PC series. Based on game play, I would say there is a lot in common between the mobile and PC games, so TK may have smartly developed all the new planes to the PC level before sticking them in the mobile games. As both would need flight models and the mobile game doesn't need cockpits... this leads to AI only planes for the PC version. Ultimately, assuming the mobile games keep TW in business, PC games may get DLC or expansion packs with cockpits for some of these aircraft. This is not too different from ED using FC level sales to help fund DCS development. But basic economic theory makes me wonder: if you are in business to make a profit, why would you use profitable products/services to support unprofitable products/services? Why not just focus on the profitable ones and make more profits and/or stay in business with lower risks of failure?

Edited June 3, 2013 by streakeagle

[+Gunrunner 313]

that's what I thought, but this is from wikipedia Mirage 5 page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_5

 

Not sayin' it's 100% accurate, but I'm jus' sayin'

That's why I used the IIIO pit.

 

Seems like the lines between the III and the 5 get blurred quite a bit.

Well, Dassault was very accommodating with the customer wishes, however the starting price point of a Mirage III was higher than that of a Mirage 5 and politically it was easier to sell the "inferior" Mirage 5, never-mind the fact that some Mirage 5 configurations (including the 5DE) ended up being Mirage IIIE, at similar cost.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Gunrunner

[+Soulfreak 6,351]

I hope, that i have time to start this evening one some cool Zipper skins. :-D

 

EDIT:

maybe we could tweak the F-104 A+C Data and post the results here?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Soulfreak

[+SupGen 78]

I think it is more a case of parallel development: the mobile games added a lot of aircraft that were not in the PC series. Based on game play, I would say there is a lot in common between the mobile and PC games, so TK may have smartly developed all the new planes to the PC level before sticking them in the mobile games. As both would need flight models and the mobile game doesn't need cockpits... this leads to AI only planes for the PC version. Ultimately, assuming the mobile games keep TW in business, PC games may get DLC or expansion packs with cockpits for some of these aircraft. This is not too different from ED using FC level sales to help fund DCS development. But basic economic theory makes me wonder: if you are in business to make a profit, why would you use profitable products/services to support unprofitable products/services? Why not just focus on the profitable ones and make more profits and/or stay in business with lower risks of failure?

 

Well, this is just my opinion, but I don't think TK started this whole thing as a way to make money, at least not to get rich. He used to work for ED, right? He probably made a decent salery and had a fair amount of job security, what he didn't have was creative freedom. I mean, look at the time period he chose; I think the big name development houses skip this period because their "focus groups" show more interest in WWll or ultra-modern FA-18, Raptor, PakFa, helmet mounted sights, can't miss missiles, etc. The period StrikeFighters covers is unique in the history of air combat because all those "ultra-modern" things (BVR and missile combat in general) were in their infancy, the jet fighter was "coming of age" and beginning to live up to it's potential. Jet combat prior to that was "WWll Redux", only faster. Again, this is only me, but I think SF is as much a "Labor of Love" for TK as anything else. One other point, Streak, I think TK's got a lot more in common with you than you might think; what aircraft has been in this series from the very beginning yet still benefits from updates, (the latest patch added slotted tailplanes for the F-4N), DLCs, DLC skinpacks, etc. Yessir, the Phabulous Phantom. In its purest form, and especially before NA, StrikeFighters IS Rhinotown, USA, and I think that's how TK likes it. Everything else is supporting cast.

[+streakeagle 864]

But businesses don't succeed based on what you like or want as owner/manager. They succeed based on profits versus costs. Obviously, as stated upfront by TK, the costs of PC development have far exceeded his profits as of SF2NA, hence the migration to mobile games. No matter how much TK loves F-4 Phantoms or flight sims in general, he has to put food on his table/pay the bills. I don't blame him for switching to mobile games. I just hate the fact that my preferences are always the unprofitable minority. I have watched countless hobby shops close, seen the end of many flight sim companies, etc. Why couldn't I just be like everyone else instead of loving hobbies that are such small niche markets.

[+SupGen 78]

I hope, that i have time to start this evening one some cool Zipper skins. :-D

 

EDIT:

maybe we could tweak the F-104 A+C Data and post the results here?

 

Ah, Zipper skins, I've been waiting to hear someone say that. Can't wait. As far as the Data.inis go, I've been comparing the F-104C_61 to the stock F-104G and, as far as positions go, they are about 98% the same; some minor differences in wing stations (as you would expect; the G's wings were a little bigger), in fact the stock F-104G cockpit position seems to work fine in the F-104C, too. (The pilots seat position is exactly the same, so why not?) There are some minor things, the fuel tank layout is wrong, the stall and landing speeds seem much too low (maybe for the AI pilots?), but like I said, minor. The animations are all the same, and you can make the nose wheel steerable the same way: CastoringNodeName=lg_front_piston. The one thing I've noticed is most of the entries relating to the flight model are much more detailed; here is one entry from the right wing of the G model:

 

CL0MachTableNumData=7

CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CL0MachTableStartX=0.00

CL0MachTableData=0.973,1.000,1.104,1.269,0.970,0.743,0.604

 

And the same entry from the C:

 

CL0MachTableNumData=24

CL0MachTableDeltaX=0.10

CL0MachTableStartX=0.00

CL0MachTableData=0.977,0.979,0.983,0.990,1.000,1.014,1.031,1.054,1.083,1.083,1.301,1.246,1.230,1.203,1.125,1.027,0.948,0.883,0.826,0.773,0.728,0.688,0.652,0.620

 

Now I don't know that much about FMs, I couldn't tell you what each of those numbers means, but the increase in number of data points deliniating the same thing would seem to indicate a more "refined" flight model, with smaller transitions. Notice I didn't say correct, because I don't know, however I would be hesitant to just "swap out" things because it might be felt that the plane is too agile or responsive, as I've seen suggested; I'm not sure what we might be losing. There are also entries relating to Stalls, etc. that have no corallary in the G models FM entries. This is also true in the Engine section. I don't know if these "extras" were just not modelled in SFP1 or if this is more "refinement". In short (Hah!), this part of the Data.ini needs a Flight Model expert.

 

But businesses don't succeed based on what you like or want as owner/manager. They succeed based on profits versus costs. Obviously, as stated upfront by TK, the costs of PC development have far exceeded his profits as of SF2NA, hence the migration to mobile games. No matter how much TK loves F-4 Phantoms or flight sims in general, he has to put food on his table/pay the bills. I don't blame him for switching to mobile games. I just hate the fact that my preferences are always the unprofitable minority. I have watched countless hobby shops close, seen the end of many flight sim companies, etc. Why couldn't I just be like everyone else instead of loving hobbies that are such small niche markets.

 

Streak, one should never regret not being a drone.

[Spinners 15,968]

They succeed based on profits versus costs.

 

I think you mean income versus costs with profits (or margin) being the result.

[+streakeagle 864]

Creating, owning, and running a business has nothing to do with being a drone. You have an idea. If it makes enough money, you can afford to keep doing it. If it doesn't, you have to choose to do something else. You can't always survive doing something you like or something you are good at. Regardless of what you or I think, TK has made his Third Wire problems and intentions in a very clear manner:

1) Third Wire lost too much time and money developing the mission editor and SF2NA.

2) Mobile games is where the market is going, so that is where he is going.

3) He will still do what he can to keep SF2 going forward at a greatly reduced pace with much less content per release.

4) There will be no SF3.

 

The AI plane pack fits well with his current business model, which could be called being a drone since trying to make quick cash with many cheap DLC releases is the trend of many other games.

Whereas in the past, these AI aircraft would have been freebies in a standard release with 4 or more new flyables, a new terrain, and one or more new campaigns.

 

Basing your business model on economic reality is not being a drone, it is surviving in the real world.

If "not being a drone" by knowingly sticking with a bad business model destroys your business and possibly your financial future, one should very much regret "not being a drone".

[+SupGen 78]

Streak, I was referring to your statement: "Why couldn't I just be like everyone else instead of loving hobbies that are such small niche markets." Not to TKs business model.

[JediMaster 451]

TK never worked for ED that I had heard. He worked for Origin/EA and later Microprose. Remember that despite delays, SF1 came out just about 4 years after EAW, the last big title I remember him working on. If he did anything post-EAW but before SF1, I don't remember.