Caesar

Ok, Copy all, and thanks for the replies. Looks like I'm either gonna have to get a good chunk of time at the community center or have my brother download the Feb patch, burn it and send it to me. Thanks again! V/R, Caesar

Good to see you at CA again, C5!

Concur, Jon, that be it! Typhoid, aren't you on that recording?

Out of a question, do your Phoenix pylons have a StationSpecific parameter? I recall on the Tu-128 I couldn't get any weapons to show up until I deleted the parameter. End result was that I was able to load the AA-4, and also weapons the plane never carried, but at least I could get missiles on the plane (to include the proper ones). The F-14 might have one for the AIM-54 for those pylons that for some reason is preventing them from showing up (which is strange if so, but it has happened to me!) My own Tomcat data.ini is pretty heavily modified so I can get asymmetric loadouts on the glove pylons and under the fuselage; to carry Iron Bombs, LGBs, JDAMs, decoy and LANTIRN pods as the plane did later in its life, so if that parameter was there, I deleted it years ago. The only other thing I can think of, if its not that, is what AttachmentType your pylons have listed, as compared to the AIM-54. I should think the pylon is either USN or NATO; check the missile's attachment against your pylon's.

The AIM-120 and AIM-54 are Active Homing Missiles (AHM) while the AIM-7 is a Semi Active Homing Missile (SAHM)so if a pylon is set for SAHM, it won't accept an AHM, nor vice-versa. Some stations are set for both AHM and SAHM, or IRM and AHM (such as the F-16's outter most wing pylon, which can accept AIM-9's and AIM-120's) other pylons, like on the F-14, are specific per missile type so that the Phoenix pylons will only show up if there are AIM-54's loaded. Also, which sim version are you running? SF-1 series or SF-2 series?

Well, considering how successful the F-117 had been up to, and following that point, I'd say passive stealth has been pretty successful. It took reconfiguring the SA-3 to get enough of a return to spot the plane[1], knowing flight patterns to know where to look[2], and to be at extremely short range [3] just to bag one of them. The newer generation of (passive) stealth aircraft are going to be harder to detect than the -117. Now, obviously that doesn't mean you can't detect it, nor that other detection methods won't be more effective, but it seems to me it works quite well. Then again, I don't deal with tactical radars, only really friggin' big ones, so my opinion or thoughts on this matter really don't mean sh*t. Nor will anyone really be able to accurately discuss this subject, considering the level of classification for an in-depth discussion on radar/stealth/jammer theory, and the systems involved with such technologies... [1] "We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret..."Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible." [2] "At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes. "I personally listened to their pilots' conversations, learning about their routes and bombing plans," Dani said [3] Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers (8 mi) away.

Wow...that's funny. Having seen this, if I were a 3D modeller I'd probably make an '83 Lebaron, or some similar automobile to be fired up into the air.

If I had to guess, I'd say make sure you've got lock on the target, as USAFMTL stated. Check Fubar's link. Don't think so.

Well, you've got a big chunk of metal affecting the airflow over your airframe and increasing drag; wouldn't surprise me at all if your plane isn't responding as quickly, or has a higher sink rate.

That depends on the plane and how many tanks are available. For the F-14, if tanks were on the plane, they STAYED on the plane, regardless of if they were empty. "Cosmo", Tomcat Driver: "Hey Joe" Parsons, Tomcat RIO: So, it depends on the frame and the service. I don't know what SOP is for the Super Bug, but they might have to keep them on too.

Whiteknight, I have seen the AI depart aircraft during ACM, but it is pretty rare. The first time I noticed it, I had brought two MiG-21F-13s on my tail into the vertical in my F-14. I had more speed than them, and as they ran out, one stopped pulling, went nose down and began regaining speed. The other began to spin. I hit F6 and saw the pilot gone. It has also happened with doc_nele's Flogger flight models, where he tried to model the very limited AoA and handling characteristics of early model Floggers. If they pulled too hard, they'd depart. But other than these instances, I don't usually see the AI loose control of their planes. From a player perspective, to me it seems that departures are easeir to do with the latest patches. I've departed the F-5 and MiG-23 irrecoverably, and put the F-14A into a flat spin, which was recoverable with rudder and aft stick. Was pretty interesting to see the nose just stuck about 5-degrees down as the terrain went spiraling around. For overstress, as Spillone stated (and is being discussed in the F/A-18 Mishap thread) the StructuralFactor will modify how much stress a part of the plane can take. So at least some of those tests you want to do can be done as it stands.

Fubar, that thing looks like a mounted machine gun! Don't make 'em like they used to, eh?

I don't remember when that was implemented, or if it had always been, but I have yanked the wings off of my Bug before; I think it was in a 16G turn. It was more than a year ago, though. Exact same thing; black out, followed by both wings off. EDIT: OK, I took by Bug up again for the specific purpose of test-to-destruction. Had to take care of a few Foxbats first, that was easy. Sent the flight home and started to do some hard turns. I got the plane into about five 14-17G turns, but was unable to pull the wings off. It seems like they came off sooner in an older patch, and before I saw your post, MAKO, I thought it had been deactivated. Well, I couldn't get them to come off, so I hit escape, and lo and behold, "Maj Pilot was wounded and hospitalized. Maj Pilot is awarded the Purple Heart!" Just above that line: One F/A-18A was damaged. I guess I would have had to put on a few more turns, or a single, VERY high G turn and they'd have probably come off. I went into the aircraft's data.ini and found the StructuralFactor line. The reason it seems that the outter wings get yanked off is that their StructuralFactor is 1.2, whereas the Fuselage and Inner Wing is 1.5. I am guessing (nothing solid here) that that means sustained flight above 1.2x7.5G (9G) will eventually rip the wings off, and sustained flight above 1.5x7.5G (11.25G) will eventually cause the fuselage to fail, but that the outter wings *should* tear away before the fuselage breaks. I'm starting to throw that factor into some of my other planes, because I like the fact that you can take account for overstress and breaking the jet.

Eject, CTD is item #30 on Falcon Six-Two's list, but spelled out: CTD is "Crash To Desktop"; a situation where something goes wrong, either while loading or running a program, which causes it to cease functioning and kick you back to your desktop, (it also usually generate an error report). V/R Caesar

Nice shots!

Felix Natalis Tibi!

Bravo Zulu, and RIP, Sir!

Oh hell yes, I miss it. I remember getting Fleet Defender, USNF, MechWarrior 2 (really played like a sim back then). Just walk into a store, and yep, big boxes, big manuals, very in-depth, and a huge selection of great games. Times have changed.

Now THAT is funny!

Same problem I have with medieval/renn (based) movies; they are horriffically inaccurate and I can't watch them anymore. An interesting thing about Top Gun, though, is that they tried to film it realistically at the start. One of the pilots involved (you can see it on the extra disc) said the problem was that the aircraft were at such distances that you could barely tell what plane was doing what, and it didn't look good. They couldn't tell the story and no one would be able to appreciate it because they wouldn't understand it. Just like if you were watching a movie where the two main characters end up in a sword fight, and the fight ends within three movements of the weapons, most of the combat being subtle movements. No one would want to watch it. Something most folks don't think about is that although it is so easy to rip on Top Gun, it was revolutionary in its own right. Navy Tomcat and TOPGUN Mongoose driver "Magic" Quist had this to say of the movie (ref. tomcat-sunset.org): "Magic" goes on to talk about how the "hit the breaks" maneuver is a real maneuver, known as a "pitch-pulse" done at 325kts, and one which relies wholy on airflow over the control surfaces (the plane will pitch no matter what the throttle settings are) to about 60-degrees nose-up. Usually it is done in early familiarization hops with trainee Tomcat pilots; the problem is that it can be countered with a high yo-yo, and the F-14 will be out of energy at the end of it, so if the opposing pilot reacts quickly enough, you'd be pretty much killing yourself, and at 325kts, you have more options available (i.e. it's more of a "gee-whiz" maneuver, like the cobra). EDIT: So to your original question, I don't think Top Gun would have worked if it were filmed realistically (as stated earlier, they even tried to) and if it were remade, very few people would be able to appreciate it, and it wouldn't look very good on camera.

Ok, I was over at The Onion, saw this, and (due to its relevence) just had to post it: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/frantic_steve_jobs_stays_up My real opinion of the iPad? Don't got one, because I don't know enough about it, but I do wonder how well it will hold up; don't recall tablet PC's doing too well. We shall see.

I used to have something up here with the NATO/WP names of Russain missiles and their guidance, though I think I screwed up one of 'em. That was about 3 or so years ago. What missiles do you need the guidance systems of? All of 'em? EDIT: Here's a list of US Air to Air missiles. Symbology - IR = Infrared, SARH = Semi-Active Radar Homing, AHM = Active Radar Homing, BR = Beam Rider Falcon Series AIM-4A/E/F - SARH AIM-4B/D/G - Rear Aspect IR AIM-26A - SARH Sidewinder Series AIM-9B/D/E/G/H/I/J/N - Rear Aspect IR AIM-9C - SARH AIM-9L/M/X - All-Aspect IR Sparrow Series AIM-7C/D/E/F/M/P - SARH AMRAAM Series AIM-120A/B/C/D - AHM Phoenix Series AIM-54A/B/C - AHM Russian Missiles R-77 (AA-12) - AHM R-73 (AA-11) - All Apsect IR R-27 (AA-10) - SARH (R,ER), All Aspect IR (T,ET), AHM (AE) R-33/37 (AA-9) - SARH R-60 (AA-8) - Limited All Aspect IR, All Apsect IR R-23 (AA-7) - SARH, Rear Aspect IR R-40 (AA-6) - SARH (RD), Rear Aspect IR (TD) R-4 (AA-5) - SARH, Rear Aspect IR K-9 (AA-4) - SARH, Rear Aspect IR K-8 (AA-3) - SARH, Rear Aspect IR K-13 (AA-2) - Rear Aspect IR K-5 (AA-1) - BR

Those Cats sure are lookin' fine!

I think it is good he's helping out with this whole sorry situation. Haiti needs all the help it can get.

Stop that, stop that! It's silly...