Capability to fire more than 1 AAM at one time

[+Gepard 10,641]

The F-14 in SF2NA has the capability to fire up to 4 AIM-54 at 4 different targets at one time.

I wanted to use this capability for other planes, because modern fighters can simultaniously engange multiple targets.

I took a look in the F-14A_avionics.ini but i found nothing related with the multiple target engangement capability.

Has someone an idea how to solve that problem?

[+EricJ 3,987]

I think with my limited knowledge is that the plane has to be setup cockpit-wise to be able to show it, if I understand you right. Most cockpits are setup with the Avionics70.dll in mind, so they don't show a multi-missile engagement right.

[simonmiller416 1,160]

The key factor is in the basic ini of this aircraft

We need to find
AvionicsDLL = Avionics70.dll (or 60)

then changed to
AvionicsDLL=AvionicsF14A.dll

 

There is a price for doing this, as we will completely lose the ability of the radar to scan and map the ground.

So far, I have only applied this module on the F-22A, because the weapons it can carry are very limited (for example, ground weapons can basically only use GBU-32 or GBU-39), and it is an air superiority fighter, so it doesn't really matter.

If I was flying a multirole fighter like the F-35 or F-18, I wouldn't be willing to make compromises

Edited July 15, 2023 by simonmiller416

[bazillius 1,254]

Chose TWS mode at radar, select AHM missiles and attack as many target as you wish or as many as you have AHM missiles. Every missile will engage own target. Just switch targets and launch. No need to lock. Switch trget and launch, switch target and launch... piew, piew, piew! Not realistick but this is the game. F-15C, F-22A, F-35B with AMRAAM, Su-35S, PAK-FA,MiG-35 with AA-12 etc. But AI fire only one at a time. Pity we have no script and compiler to edit and mix avionic dlls

Edited July 16, 2023 by bazillius

[OlWilly 105]

On 15.07.2023 at 7:43 PM, simonmiller416 said:

If I was flying a multirole fighter like the F-35 or F-18, I wouldn't be willing to make compromises

In the environment of SF2 engine, TWS mode is more important than ground mapping feature.

Ground mapping is mostly for eye candy while TWS allows the proper use of missiles like AMRAAM, R-77, R-37 or Meteor. It makes no sense flying something modern if you still have to guide AMRAAM like a Sparrow

If you still want to retain ground mapping feature, it makes sense to do two aircraft versions: one with 70.dll for strike missions, other with F-14.dll for air-combat

Edited July 17, 2023 by OlWilly

[OlWilly 105]

On 16.07.2023 at 5:27 AM, bazillius said:

Pity we have no script and compiler to edit and mix avionic dlls

It is possible, but requires someone with extensive knowledge of dll libraries.

Also I recon the administration of the site doesn't want such things as they will annoy SF developer. So if this happens, someone has to host modified files away from Combatace

[simonmiller416 1,160]

1 hour ago, OlWilly said:

In the environment of SF2 engine, TWS mode is more important than ground mapping feature.

Ground mapping is mostly for eye candy while TWS allows the proper use of missiles like AMRAAM, R-77, R-37 or Meteor. It makes no sense flying something modern if you still have to guide AMRAAM like a Sparrow

If you still want to retain ground mapping feature, it makes sense to do two aircraft versions: one with 70.dll for strike missions, other with F-14.dll for air-combat

Agree ,but not completely agree, I like to double-click Alt+D to remove the HUD to fly, the ground scan mode can detect the enemy fleet at a farther distance than the map (I regard the map as a situational awareness panel) or the accuracy of anti-aircraft missiles Location, I can identify in SEAD based on RWR if it's my hit or not, it makes sense to me.

And for DCA mission types, yeah, I prefer the F14A.dll against all enemy airpower, my F-22A with this dll, im able to launch an attack on 6 targets at the same time from 100KM away, and continue to guide the AIM-120D until they enter the radar start-up range

Due to engine limitations so this is something I have to think about, also I don't want to make extra units to use different radar modules, and I also need to consider writing different AI for them to suit the battles they should be doing (e.g. F-16CM/F-35 tend to do SEAD/DEAD, I'd use 70s), which is troublesome for me.You know, people always have reasons to be lazy, lol

Yeah, this is a cliché, SF2 was designed based too early era for modern combat systems, but I still want to do it
 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by simonmiller416

[bazillius 1,254]

3 hours ago, OlWilly said:

It is possible, but requires someone with extensive knowledge of dll libraries.

Also I recon the administration of the site doesn't want such things as they will annoy SF developer. So if this happens, someone has to host modified files away from Combatace

That was soft ask to TW to share for us SF2 engine, ha-ha. He will read this, and tears of tenderness will run from his eyes, and he will give us all the scripts and tools. And we will be able to edit the game like Falcon 4.0. The game engine is REALLY in need of repair. very very, realy realy. A potentially good game with so many mods will just die soon. I am joking  do not pay attention

[+EricJ 3,987]

Lol. According to Stratos we can, but honestly not sure but if I could I would program stuff (I can't so don't try and get me to do it) and maybe add stuff, but then again would need the assets to do it, and I don't know  how available they are.

[bazillius 1,254]

9 minutes ago, EricJ said:

 (I can't so don't try and get me to do it)

Me too yeah.... we all have an ace up our sleeve waiting to be played! Well... just tweaking the game in the right place. I'm just kidding. Ha-ha. Nobody will give us no one tool lets play as it is.

Edited July 17, 2023 by bazillius

[Stratos 3,177]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Lol. According to Stratos we can, but honestly not sure but if I could I would program stuff (I can't so don't try and get me to do it) and maybe add stuff, but then again would need the assets to do it, and I don't know  how available they are.

Not according to me, but according to TK, the thing is CA do not want to get involved, and I respect that.

[+EricJ 3,987]

Ahh okay, thanks for the clarification. I mean why not get involved? But that's not my call.

[OlWilly 105]

37 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Not according to me, but according to TK, the thing is CA do not want to get involved, and I respect that.

This is what I say - if anyone ever does such a thing, the new files should be hosted away from Combatace. Preferably by someone from another country 

[+Menrva 4,074]

2 hours ago, Stratos said:

Not according to me, but according to TK, the thing is CA do not want to get involved, and I respect that.

I don't know who opposes this here at CA. I would certainly be happy to do it, but I entirely lack skills to do any reverse engineering. We've discussed this countless times; this is not programming in a specific language (something which I can do), this is on a different level really. And if nothing happened in twenty years (we've seen programmers much more capable than me produce tools to mod Strike Fighters better than ever) then chances are very slim that the game's coding could be reverse engineered successfully. Find someone who would do it and everyone would be happy. Sadly I don't know anyone with those skills that's interested in such an old game; if and when I get to meet such a person, that's the only contribution I could give aside from the knowledge I have about the game engine's limitations.

If TK really wanted to help, he could have been more involved with the healthy bit of the community and shared such info. He has no interest in doing that and I'm not planning to beg him after what I consider very poor marketing decisions.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Menrva

[+EricJ 3,987]

11 minutes ago, Menrva said:

 

If TK really wanted to help, he could have been more involved with the healthy bit of the community and shared such info. He has no interest in doing that and I'm not planning to beg him after what I consider very poor marketing decisions.

Pretty much

[Wrench 9,625]

Yup

[simonmiller416 1,160]

11 hours ago, Menrva said:

I don't know who opposes this here at CA. I would certainly be happy to do it, but I entirely lack skills to do any reverse engineering. We've discussed this countless times; this is not programming in a specific language (something which I can do), this is on a different level really. And if nothing happened in twenty years (we've seen programmers much more capable than me produce tools to mod Strike Fighters better than ever) then chances are very slim that the game's coding could be reverse engineered successfully. Find someone who would do it and everyone would be happy. Sadly I don't know anyone with those skills that's interested in such an old game; if and when I get to meet such a person, that's the only contribution I could give aside from the knowledge I have about the game engine's limitations.

If TK really wanted to help, he could have been more involved with the healthy bit of the community and shared such info. He has no interest in doing that and I'm not planning to beg him after what I consider very poor marketing decisions.

Too bad, if I remember correctly, the SF series is based on TK's own engine design, right? The reverse engineering of an independent engine is definitely difficult. It is by no means like UE, which already has quite a few mature tools developed by enthusiasts and only needs someone to learn how to use them. TK may have designed an independent computer language for this purpose . Our problem is that we don’t even know what to rely on, let alone how to start from where to start working.

Donno can I see the day in my life.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by simonmiller416