Leaderboard

Guys, no one here has committed an infraction, it is unfortunate that they are distancing themselves just to defend ideas and outside others who have committed an infraction do not care what is happening here... @Menrva, @daddyairplanes, @bazillius, you are valuable, I don't know get angry just for presenting different positions...Bazillius has not promoted anything against CA, I only see that he renounces claiming ownership of his work (he does not want to worry about that) and that is his right. ...the rest of the opinions are subjective and we can agree or not but they are only our opinions... please do not marginalize your joint projects. unity is strength... we also have different nationalities with our ways of speaking and expressing ideas here standardized to english, which does not always faithfully interpret what we want to say in verbal language... so let's not take it literally at all, Happy new year guys, may this year be fruitful here and in your private life and I reiterate my admiration and respect for each of you.

A Great Dane

North American F-109A Retaliator Development of the North American A3J-1 Vigilante progressed well during the late 1950's and the first flight of the YA3J-1 prototype in August 1958 revealed it to be a real thoroughbred, packed from nose to tail with outstanding technology. However, a strong faction against the Vigilante was forming within the USN arguing that strategic bombing was not part of the USN's business and North American decided not to assume that large orders for the 'basic' A3J-1 would follow and they began to look at other roles for the Vigilante. One line of development would eventually lead to the reconnaissance Vigilante (RA-5C) but another line of development transformed the A3J-1 into various fleet defender and ADC fighter options. Fortunately, the wing of the A3J-1 was designed for zero wind over deck launches and this resulted in a wing too large for low-level attack missions but ideal for a fighter. During early 1959 North American offered a long-range fighter version to the USN and USAF but had only a lukewarm response. However, following the cancellation of their F-108 Rapier in September 1959 things now became a bit more urgent for North American and they schemed a revised A3J-1 Fighter with uprated J79 engines and semi-recessed Sparrow missiles. Trying again in 1960 they received a firm no from the USN (who by then knew they had a winner in the F4H-1 Phantom II) but the USAF agreed to a detailed analysis of an optimsed land-based interceptor fighter (named Retaliator in May 1960) and in June 1960 they announced that the Retaliator was to be ordered as an immediate follow-on to the F-106 programme with 350 ordered although this figure was later reduced to 240. The prototype YF-109 flew on April 30th 1962 and production F-109A's entered service in late 1964 with the 5th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Minot AFB, North Dakota. The only export order was from Canada who ordered 60 in 1968 and these entered service with No.409 squadron in 1969 remaining in service until 1990. 3D Model & template Credit: Julhelm

F-113A Retaliator, Heavy Navy Fleet Defender

Let's go to the other side of the Viper World.......

YGBSM......

Well said, PeacePuma, well said

Gentlemen, It's the holidays and a new year is right around the corner. Nobody needs harsh words though I understand some people are passionate about their views. Let's please consider getting back to where we were before this topic was ever started and let us not ruin some good friendships over any of this. Yes, some have been wronged but our problem isn't with the people here but the ones taking work and sharing it inappropriately. When it comes down to it, we're all limited to regulate proprietary infringement unless you're willing to spend the time and money it takes to police it. I wish you all great holiday blessings and may 2024 bring health, prosperity, and happiness to you and your families. Kindly, Erik

If I understand you correctly, then you want to make another plane from the standard aircraft model, which is already in the vanilla game, by hiding parts in ini files and adding a fake pilot, and you want to know whether just a link to the LOD of the model will work, then the answer is yes. You can do this, and then you can post it here to share with us. For examole look at this aircraft Its made from vanila standart F-16A_Netz and in iniu have a link on the LOD [LOD001] Filename=F-16A_Netz.LOD

The Last Pic its foxing cool

Great glad you are enjoying it Waggaz. Mm interesting idea - buy an aircraft ;).

My only complaint is Steam distribution. That's just a personal opinion and is not a reflection on the quality of the game in any way. Steel Beasts really needed some competition as well IMHO. I have been waiting for years for a Steel Beasts "non-pro". GHPC really fits that bill. And I STILL play M-1 Tank Platoon 2!!

Bear Hunt

Kuril islands terrain and Faroe terrain have USMC in nation list too. In Faroe you must look in the folder goodies, there you find some nations inis with diffrent friend or foe setting, including USMC vs Soviet.

No. Jugs, yes, Spits, yes. Hurricanes, yes. Wellingtons, Blenheims in the early days

In 'N' Out burgers on Hawaii terrains needed LOL

Kaboom!

MiG Ye-8 "Vosmyorka", East German Air Force, Jagdfliegergeschwader-9, JG-9, Peenemünde, 1965

Happy New Year Luftwaffe F-4F Phantom over a wintry Germany , good old times

Over the Med, heading to the practice range, 1960

Swamp Foxes.........

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,71717.0.html

You would never believe me :)

little friends taking off, to link up and clear the way for the big boys

yeah i know you got it rougher than 99% of the community at the moment. part of why the argument suprises me abit there are some that have a big issue with this. not the biggest problem in the world, but it is a major problem in their world having had a skin and the model done like that with credit to neither, i understand their point of view i do fail to see why its hard to simply put a sentence in somewhere saying "this person did this part of the project you see"

People, we are all 45+ years old here, but we behave like children in a sandbox. He stole my plastic scoop, plastic bucket which I gave him as a gift. All the complainers make it very difficult to modify the game. When you post a modification, someone is bound to complain about something. As a result, each team makes its own aircraft and does not share it with anyone. How can you say that something was stolen from you if you gave it yourself? You did something, just don’t share it. If it were not for the constant squabbles on the site, there would be many more modifications.

But you still need an "old" and no longer available legally version of max to use the TW exporter. The whole SF series owes it's success and long life to three things; 1, TK making it "user friendly" in the first place. 2, The "leaked/stolen" F-4E model. 3, Dodgy software.

Believe me, it is not a waste of time to talk about these things... sometimes it is good to know what the community thinks about respect for the work done here... and my comment to Menrva is not a criticism, it is just saying that we must be firm with the rules but you don't have to go on a witch hunt because it is exhausting and you can fall into injustice... I think that outside of CA there are many people who honestly don't know how long it takes to make a model... hey Here you have a crazy person who took 10 years to create a marvel... (I say crazy out of affection), when you get involved you value him a lot and you empathize more with the frustration of seeing your creation usurped. I also believe that there are stupid people, without bad intentions, who have not thought about what they do and share things "generously", they deserve a cordial warning, and there are certainly ill-intentioned people who appropriate other people's work, without any respect, towards them. You have to be tough and severe. Some can sometimes find me on a Latin FB (I haven't posted photos of the sim in a while) the thing is that several complaints were generated due to the CA material that was published without consent, with the support of several users and the administrators it was achieved filter the content before making the posts public, personally when I saw that a CA file was published I chose to invite the user to delete it for the good of everyone and the reputation of the site... I think people understand with good manners, I also insist There are cretins who don't care about anything, but sooner or later they will close the door from the outside... my message is simple, CA gives us the possibility of approaching talented people who offer quality work for free, simply in exchange for loyalty If we do not respect that, accounts will be closed and a great community will be smaller and more exclusive. Regarding the issue of whether you design with legal or pirated software, come on... that corresponds to the moral formation of each person, I will not think about anyone's wallet, everyone knows what they are doing, we are already quite adults. .

@Menrva Sorry mate, I understand where you're coming from and like I say I was'nt trying to cause any rifts or ruffle any feathers. This is the modern age and sadly morals and ethics mean nothing where the internet is concerned.

L-39 Albatros

One thing I wish this sim had but its probably not possible due to the old code limitations is that "physics" feeling of flight" and less of the sliding feel which I think was leftover from the MSCFS coding . I also always find myself having to constantly apply a lot of rudder input just to stay on target and hit planes because of how the flight model works. This game beats every other WW1 out there, even current tech ones in terms of the campaign. Length of war, realism, amount of flyables and just about everything. But it could really use a flight model upgrade. That said, it does not stop me from liking the sim an playing it.

Flying Tigers on the Hunt... and your trivia for today: the 74th FS in 1995 had the most D model Block 40 (6) of any unit outside of Luke AFB. Given the 23rd Wing's role to support the 82nd Airborne Division at the time, these were assigned to act as Fast FACs

I have been a supporter for about a year now and I am looking forward to the finished product. The fact that Steel Beasts is the only modern tank sim available these days is depressing. It is overpriced, overblown and nothing I want to get involved with. I am planning to renew my support and stick with the project until complete. Supporters do get a more full featured demo and the updates have been coming out at a nice pace.

True. The soviet designer who later developed the AA-8 Aphid (R-60) said once: The AIM-9B Sidewinder was our missile university. The soviets learned all how to make a IR missile. In the 1970th an east german MiG-21 lost a R-3S (Atoll) over the Baltic Sea. West german frogmen found the missile and west german weapon engineers tested it. Afterwards they said: "The Atoll is a very good copy of the AIM-9B Sidewinder". They put it on a rail of a F-104G and the missile worked very well.

That's highly true! For example the AIM-9L/M was developed conjutly by USAF and USN, but are different in the cooling liquid for the seeker, Argon for the USAF and nitrogen ( as more simple to produce on aircraft carrier) for the Navy,with subsequent logistical issue: for example when the Navy shore based a det of VF-154 F-14A for FAC duty during OIF at Al Udeid ( if remember well) this cause the necessity of send the equipment for reload the nitrogen bottles of the Winder,helped from the Aussie F-18 det sharing the air base. And about the interoperability of Aim-9B/AA-2, when the IDF/AF seized Egiptyan air bases in the Sinai after the SDW, found some Atoll left and used'em in combat on the Shahaks Beginning with the Aim-9D, all the Navy Aim-9s (D/G/H/L/M) used the nitrogen cooling bottles fitted on the missiles launcher rails,so the modification to carry one version instead of another is tied principally to the launcher rails ( I suppose at least)

the problem was not so much the wiring the missiles are conneced with a quick releas connector to the launchrail , the launchrail in the beginnig was the AERO-3B and was used for the AIM-9B only all other AIM-9 including the AIM-9B used from ca.1966 onward the LAU-7A the wiring on the aircraft side was not so much a big deal some aircraft like the F-86 did get to a later point the AIM-9 capability other aircrafts like F-104G and F-4B or F-1 had from the beginning the capability some AIM-9 like the AIM-9C was only used on the F-8 others like the AIM-9D/G/H are only used by the U.S. Navy ( some are exported ) the AIM-9E/J/L/M/N/P are used mainly by the USAF and the NATO partners and Israel , but theoreticaly can a USAF jet launch the Navy AIM-9 and vice versa

As usual, I was looking at the problem as being far more complicated than it really was. I downloaded the latest drivers for my system from Intel, and, Voila! Problem solved! Heres a screenshot of my Tiawanese F-86F over the beautiful Taiwan terrain by USAFTML and Wolf257 that I downloaded recently.