Leaderboard

Air Force PaveHawk

Engine : The code that makes the game run, interprets assets Assets : The content, planes, textures, terrains, menus, anything that is not code File Format : The specific way content is stored and organised to be read properly by the engine To clarify what OP intends as I read it : Important, IANAL, I'm just stating generalities not specific to any country, based on commonly used laws, enforceable EULAs and existing similar efforts OP apparently intends to provide a new engine, not using TK's intellectual property, not distributing TK's content, but compatible with its file format, meaning that if you own SF2, you would move SF2 assets to the new engine, and the game could then use them; likewise, any mods would be compatible. IF OP provides a clean engine, developed legally, without including TK's code, it would be legal. (TA Spring IIRC is an example of this) IF OP does so by reverse-engineering TK's code for reference and rewriting it, it would be legal in most countries. (ScummVM, OpenRCT and modern OpenTTD are good example of this) IF OP does so by reverse-engineering TK's code but not rewriting it, it would be illegal in most countries. (Early OpenTTD is a bad example of this, it's been fixed since) IF OP distributes any of TK's assets without a licence and his authorisation, it would be illegal. (I don't have any example of project behaving that way) IF OP distributes the engine without assets, requiring the user to use his own legally owned copies, it would be legal (TTD Patch, OpenTTD, OpenRCT, ScummVM, TA Spring, Falcon BMS and so many other projects work that way, provide a new engine, or engine patch, but require original files for assets). IF OP distributes the engine along community assets, following the rules of the assets' licence, it would be fine. IF OP distributes the engine along community assets, without following the rules of the assets' licence (asking for and obtaining the creator's consent, properly crediting creators etc), it would be an issue. Some mods are under a pretty liberal licence, other under a rather restrictive one, some have no clear licence, almost none have an industry standard licence (which isn't good but hey, that's how it works here and does so mostly fine for this community), the rule of thumb would be to make sure to follow the licence, and even if not required, inform and obtain the consent of the creator. The question is whether the file formats are proprietary, someone's intellectual property that OP can't use without a licence, or are a free format that doesn't require a licence, allowing OP to freely have their engine interpret it. The "key" file formats would be : - The CAT format, which is the main archive storage for assets, but AFAIR it's a rather basic concatenation of files and is not proprietary, besides extraction/creation tools have been provided by TK and the community for decades so it's likely not an issue. CatPack by Gerwin in extract-write mode and CAT Extractor by Mue in extract-only exist as tolerated precedents. - The LOD format, which is used to store 3D models, it might be specific to TK in its implementation, but he provided tools to export to LOD and allowed community tools to exist provided they are read-only, his objections were to being able to extract the models for modifications. LOD Viewer by Mue exists as a read-only precedent. - The TFD and HFD formats, which are used to store terrain tiling and height map data, likewise, they are rather generic and TK provided tools to manipulate them and never objected to third party tools. TFDTool by Gerwin exists as a read-write precedent. - The TOD format, which is used to place non-physicalised objects on tiles, is not standard to my knowledge. TOD Editor by Mue exists as a read-write precedent. Anything else is a rather standard and non-proprietary affair. As you can see, even if these formats are proprietary, their use has been tolerated by the community and TK for decades at this point, so the only issue might be if the intent is to extract assets for IP infringement, or for a commercial use. As you might have guessed, the people to contact to understand how to manipulate these file formats would be Gerwin and Mue (but be polite and patient, they already contributed a lot, have a life of their own, they might not be willing and able to help as much or as fast as you'd hope, but if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll do their best, just don't harass them). You would also need a FM and avionics guru as these are non-trivial and have their peculiarities. This would mean that decades of work on the Strike Fighters series could get a new life on a new flight simulation engine, which could, once on par with the original, fix and even extend the damn thing. This would be the best way forward, provided the file formats are not proprietary. BUT... this is a monumental task (well, getting things in a workable state is "easy", getting it working as intended, polished, stable, scalable, with decent framerates, bug-free is the monstrous task), requiring a lot of time, possibly money, and expertise. IF such a project were to happen, I would suggest it to be non-commercial, possibly open-source, and community-managed to avoid issues. Having it be a CombatAce project would provide an existing structure, community, possibly financing, access to knowledgeable people, and above all, people able to tell you that some things would be unethical by the community's standards if you were to take shortcuts the community isn't at ease with. Also, a pool of people who have played these games for decades and can thus test things for you, tell you exactly how to make it behave as intended and how to improve what we've been dying to see improved for years can't hurt. It would be important for the project to be source-available at the very least, to allow TK to independently check whether any of his code found its way into it, for the coders among us to offer advice and criticism without having to commit time to the project. Open source with an adequate licence would be even better, allowing anyone to contribute to the project without getting more involved than they can afford, or allowing the community to pick the project up should real-life force you to abandon the project at some point. It would be good for trust, transparency and long-term sustainability of such a project.

ok, 10th TFS Hahn AB West Germany. who wore it better? NATO Fighters 5 WIP (with proper serial for a Block 25, let alone the 10th TFS) real life, 1987

That pit would be cool. I mean, since I'd rather have them(whole series) be AI controlled units, I'd probably look for a similar pit, not make one.They will be flyable by the player, but that's not the point.

So yeah,SOAR's hawk, still need to investigate their correct number, other aspects, so far so good... Following SUDNAVY's suggestion, I'm trying to add a "static" aircraft, named "Gunner Target", that is completely invisible, but the AI gunner will recognize and fire at it. I imagine it could be used in pre-made missions, placed next to ground targets like troops, so that the AI gunner would appear to be strafing the ground, and maybe even hit these "real targets".

While reinventing the wheel is a nice modding exercise for those who don't know how to add nations yet, I'd rather suggest downloading this package of mine which includes all Ace Combat nations with known insignia. I created it exactly for those users and modders who wanted all such insignia from the Ace Combat universe, ready for use. It also offers a good example on how to add nations in general, anyway. Beware, the above mod removes all stock nations, so it only offers those of Ace Combat. With it, the only task for skinners is to add decals properly like it is done for the stock aircraft of Strike Fighters 2 (for references, one should unpack the decals.ini file of stock aircraft skins).

to be fair 3d modelling is one of the most time consuming disciplines in game making. opinions will vary with coding and terrain making(level building for non sims) depending on who you talk to.but those are the top three and the effort put into them rather justifies creator defense against someone else making one small change and claiming something new. we skinners, decal artists and simple ini editors are second tier no (matter how good we are) to the modellers, terrain builders and FM gurus

it'll probably get a little smaller, but its been fun dancing it around base on one pic, just to see how it is on another bird. just trying to average it out and fit the model to boot (i now know why decal sheets specify specific kits they were developed for!) the other fun is getting the tail decal together. 313th will have the wing king, which is totally different than any other tail. so its markings wont be on skin.....

I remember them from my Incirlik days when they came down for training. This is one that will look good no matter what.

joe baughers site would be good for that. it wont necessarily say which ones were in the 160th, but nobody else flies MH-60Ls its all in how you look for it

Klaxxon Creek '86

Rare photo of German F-104Gs during interception training circa 1979. On the left of the pic you can see tracer rounds fired by a third F-104G whose pilot left master arm ON by mistake. Ηe fired only a short burst before he realize his mistake and turned master arm OFF immidiately. Luckily all rounds gone ballistic and there was no friendly fire hit reported.

well there are alot out there. many of the old all in ones like the original ODS and NF5 had the old SF1 versions ported to SF2. even ODS30AE has some of the same aircraft as nothing new was available. the KC-10 is uppermost on my mind there, the original model being from well before 2010 and merely getting skin updates as the years progressed. 5400+ mods here specific to SF2, but the first 1000 or so were just bringing the old gen up to the new ones standard

Now 3 new crew mods, 1 for pilots, 2 for gunners(left and right), I found a free low poly model looks similar to HGU-56,so I port to the game, enough for the looking I guess. Of course I still need to remove this weird glossiness. Besides, "The external features of the UH-60L model were essentially unchanged from the “A” model", and as far as I know, only very very early 60As dosent hava HIRSS, so personally I don't want one more standalone variant unless someone really need one.I would probably just differentiate them(A/L) by different values in DATA.ini. My next step is MH-60L/60L DAP, with or without refueling probe.I do like later MH-60Ms but to many modeling work to do.

View File Mirage F1EE(M) Mirage F1EE(M) The F1M upgrade was applied to 48 Spanish F1CE/EE. The prototype F1M flew in April 1998, and CASA delivered the remainder between March 1999 and 15 March 2001. The project included a revised cockpit with colour LCDs and a Smart HUD from Sextant Avionique, a Sextant inertial navigation system with GPS interface; NATO-compatible Have Quick 2 secure communications; Mode 4 digital IFF; a defensive aids suite; and flight recorders. The radar was upgraded to Cyrano IVM standard, adding sea search and air to ground ranging modes. F1EE(M) Specifics: Same as F1EE_late plus: Major Cockpit redesign: new HUD Left MFD for radar display, weapon and other configuration pages UFCP Up Front Control Panel AN/ALR-300 RWRmiscellaneous others re-layouts and additions GPS antenna for improved Inertial Navigation System double wingtips lights IFF antenna Covered units : Ala 14. This addon is and will in all cases remain freeware. Released under CombatAce Fair-Use terms. Enjoy The Mirage F-1 Team. Submitter ludo.m54 Submitted 12/01/2024 Category Mirage F1  

Your ideas can be easily implemented by using different Nations.ini. I can include such ini's in a Goodies folder, as i have already done it for Faeroer terrain. No problem at all. SitRep: Test for forest tiles with forest to farm transition tiles.

Also, like "The Wingman" series of books -- post-break up USA, with various occipiers and internal factions or zomibes

Angry Birds: Jayhawk Edition