Caesar

TMF Wep Pak is "The Mirage Factory Weapon Pack". It's got a lot of updated weapon skins/models, but doesn't have as many specific weapons for specific countries, primarily NATO and WP to cut down on the numbers (i.e. there's not 10 types of Sidewinder for 10 different countries). Anything I missed?

Thanks to Craig and everyone involved. Just flight tested it: Friggin' Awesome.

That plane looks so friggin' hot. I don't even play Red air most of the time, but damn...another masterpiece by the MF.

R-73M2 is your best bet. Also, what sim are you playing, SF/WoV/WoE/WoI? In WoI the missiles have more realistic envelopes. Even an all-aspect missile will have problems if you're at the limits of its envelope, unlike earlier games where you're pretty much guaranteed a hit.

Si te futuas, gaudeam. Serously, I should have figured as much.

Own it and still play it. Not as fun as Kaboom! IMHO, but a real fun game nonetheless.

Ok, sorry for the late response. Vanilla install did nothing; I guess the best way to ensure takeoff is to either use autopilot or go second down the catstroke.

I might just re-download and re-install the carrier and see if that does anything. I'm thinking I might not have the latest model. EDIT: Well, that didn't do it; time for a Vanilla install.

Ok, here's what I've got. I'm using a modified stock Lebanon War campaign. I checked over everything, switched back to CVN-75, etc. I still have the same problem UNLESS my wingman launches first. I have no idea why, but if I let him go ahead and then launch, my plane goes down the catapult and I'm in control no questions asked. I also noticed that Catapult 4 doesn't work for some reason and when I'm in a 4-ship, I can't launch: when I release breaks my plane disappears, so I'm limited to 2 or 3 ship formations. Will have to test the latter on the other CV's.

Bringing up Ace Combat is a good point: that's a game, not a sim. When the majority of people think of fighter jets and dogfights, they think Top Gun; getting within WWI and WWII ranges, and cornering as quickly as those fighters in a modern a/c while doing Mach 1.5; i.e. loading 30G on the airframe thinking it's 9. They criticize sims that try to mimic any reality; take Over G fighters or Aero Elite; certainly not the most in-depth sims, but also not "games" in the sense of AC. They got barbequed because the aircraft felt "sluggish", accelerated "slowly", and had a very hard time evading the latest and greatest generations of missiles. And why were they blowing up after taking a few gun hits? An airplane with even a single 2000 pounder on its racks handles a LOT differently than a clean airplane or an airplane sporting a few sidewinders; I recall "Dewar" Dye explaining that at an airshow before he was killed to a reporter who asked him something to the effect of: "and the plane handles like this even with bombs and missiles, right?" "No, it moves kinda like a pig with bombs on it." But if the mass public, whose only understanding of fighter planes draws from Top Gun, Area 88 and Macross, finds their 9G Viper struggling to hit 4 because it's loaded down with fuel, bombs and missiles, they probably think "double-u tee eff?" They don't find it very fun not to be able to corner at Mach or black out. A simmer ought to review sims, a gamer games, because a gamer is not going to like a sim.

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=26920 see here^^

I've been testing with the F-14, but haven't been making much progress.

I would have theorized yes, but I just switched out the DO CVN-75 with CVAN-65 and got the same result. There has to be something I overlooked, just gotta figure out what it is!

Well, what Brian meant is: the numbers are accurate, the number on the lower display box is your Indicated Air Speed. Here's an example, using the F-15A Baz Notice that the little box says 625knots. That is my Indicated Air Speed. The HUD reads my True Air Speed: Mach 2.489, very nearly Mach 2.5, and also notice, this is with 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders loaded. In other words, my F-15 is traveling at the speed of Mach 2.489, but to put it loosely, will handle as if it were traveling at just below Mach 1 at International Standard Atmosphere conditions. Also notice how much fuel I consumed trying to reach Mach 2.5 You see, it can be done, and you've probably hit that magic number already. Just remember TAS is on the HUD and IAS is in that little box. The numbers are accurate.

Strangely enough I get the same problem as described. I installed the carrier as per the KB, but when I launch, the A/C is uncontrollable, and usually augers in. On a few occasions control randomly comes back before the A/C is doomed, and my wingman does that strange 90*turn. I'll have to investigate further.

Great job on the Bear! Will be a welcome addition to the TW series!

Definately a difference between the two. Also of note: aircraft can't fly as fast or turn as hard when they're loaded down. I'd like to see an F-15 try to hit 2.5IMN with 3 tanks, 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders. It just isn't going to happen. The Max Speed is usually done with a "clean" aircraft, and at high altitude with less air resistance. I think the -15 hits 1.21IMN or so at sea level, but has reached 2.5IMN waaay up high in a clean configuration. Even then, it's still going to take you a while to get that fast, and there's not really a practical reason to do so.

Felix natalis tibi!

Lookin' sexy. Keep up the good work!

"Bat Drift angle"... That movie is friggin hillarious. I have the DVD.

Felix natalis tibi!

Mmmmm...Mudhen

<S>

I also am more a fan of the newer set up. Historically speaking the AIM-7 was pretty piss-poor over Vietnam, pilots firing them in groups of two or three just hoping one would hit. Even in the '89 Tomcat engagement over Libya at least the first AIM-7 missed (and that was either an F or an M, IIRC). The more ultra-modern missiles are far deadlier, certainly, and that ought to be reflected, but I like the fact that missiles have more restrictive envelopes now. Heck, I had a -9L track at the sun (hit F9 and the sucker's just going straight at it!) I find it more realistic than before.