streakeagle

Functionally, it looks similar to having a old MS Sidewinder Pro USB (which I have as a spare for travel and/or guests). Looks like a fairly useful stick without needing the space/weight of a full HOTAS setup. I will look for it in stores to get a feel for it. I used to give MS SW Pro USBs to my friends to try to get them to fly, but this looks like a great replacement.

One way to get around the decals per mesh limit is to combine several smaller decals into one larger (sometimes massive!) one... especially if they are all a fixed image that doesn't change with the aircraft number. But you can even do this with tail numbers if you don't mind have a large number of decals of a substantial size. If you download my A-1 Skyraider package from avsim.com you will find the included MiG Killer skin is a good example of the single large decal solution. I started with MarcFighter's excellent skin and reworked it as best as I could to increase the accuracy of the details while overcoming mapping limitations of the A-1 Skyraider model. Another work around is to paint some of the details onto the skin itself. This method is limited by the resolution of the skin and the distortion of the mapping. For instance, Sundowner makes very high resolution F-4 skins using few or no decals that are most impressive... however, the mapping does distort the national insignias.

Go here to see screenshots from the next SFP1/WOV/WOE patch: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2889

1. This forum requires you to be a member to follow your link. 2. This forum no longer accepts new members. Therefore, I have no idea what this topic is about

I might actually buy an X-52 if it looks like that ;) I still like the appearance and functionality of the X-36 USB best, but making a black X-52 is a big step back in the right direction. Style aside, what made the X-36 and its successors superior to the competition was providing comparable functionality (and to a lesser extent quality) for half the price. If this "X-52 Pro" is really just a black X-52 with metal knobs and they charge a lot more $ for what is purely a superficial change, I would be more inclined to buy the original for value or CH Products for quality. I love the idea of the Thrustmaster Cougar, but the internals did not match the price. I never understood why Saitek deviated from the all-black, realistic look since the majority of people spending the $ on this type of equipment tend to be the hard-core realism fanatics. Saitek sticks would also look a lot more realistic if they got rid of the "c" brace in front of the stick. What games other than realistic flight sims even need this kind of hardware? So why not make realistic sticks like CH Products and TM Cougar? It would really be nice if you could plug in the stick grip of the airplane you like as TM Cougar planned but never supported. I wish I had not thrown away my TM Top Gun Platinum sticks. I would love to adapt the grips from those to a Saitek base since they were the standard US grip from the F-4 and early F-15.

Your written English is good enough to be understood... which is more than I can say for many US citizens born and raised here. Besides, you don't need to know English to make great 3d models and share them with us :)

About time a Viggen hits the SFP1 game engine :)

View File F-4B Hi-Res Cockpit V1 Combination of the stock F-4J cockpit and higher resolution textures that provides a decent F-4B cockpit. Submitter streakeagle Submitted 08/15/2006 Category Jet Cockpits  

<S> to Jug. I have met and talked with many pilots over the years, but never a U-2 pilot. It is an honor meet you if only in this virtual community.

I ended up in Atlanta and trapped for a while :(

They all have functional cockpits in multiplayer. You don't need to go online to fly them. Just select multiplayer. Host a co-op mission... Fly any aircraft on the drop down box. It is not an easter egg so much as a design feature to use the A-4 cockpit for any aircraft that doesn't have one. However, a better way is to find an allied aircraft with similar systems and assign it to be the cockpit. For instance, the F-4E cockpit is perfect for the MiG-23 since both have radar, radar homing missiles and guns. With a few edits, the F-4E avionics can be altered to reflect MiG-23 capabilities... However, in this case, a MiG-23 addon is available. You can either replace the stock MiG-23 with the addon or borrow the cockpit from the addon to use with the stock MiG-23. The open nature of the game's file system provides almost unlimited options. Of course most people just want to play the game, so for them user mods are the way to go rather than editing files on their own. I have my own preferences and prefer to customize every to my liking when I am creating an install with mods... but for multiplayer, it is usually easiest to keep everything stock so anybody can join without having to find out what the host has installed and duplicate it exactly.

The change was made because the MiGs (lacking functional cockpits) are not supposed to be flyable in single player ;) During beta testing, non-flyables were made flyable to make it easier to find 3d model and FM bugs, but the final release should only have the aircraft listed on the box in the flyable list.

There is no MiG-29 in WOE and MiGs are not supposed to be flyable in a stock install (except in multiplayer mode). MiGs and Sus have no 3d cockpits out of the box (they use a generic A-4 pit when you fly them in multiplayer). The aircraft folders can be easily modified to assign cockpits and permit flying the non-flyable aircraft in single player. Downloadable mods exist that do so for you. There are also cockpits available for some MiGs and the MiG-29 is an addon aircraft that is available for download.

The best way to control zoom is through buttons. I have the zoom keys mapped to virtual buttons on my X-36 and X-45 rotary knobs so that I can zoom in/out as if I was using the normal keys. This method works well enough for me: slow enough to get the level of zoom I want, fast enough to get there before I die ;)

SFP1 game engine files are stored in *.CAT files. The community standard is to use a utility called SFP1E (SFP1 Extractor) to get files out of the CAT files. SFP1E is available for download from here and Check6!: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...mp;showfile=343

The real F-15 has flown with an entire wing missing (well enough to get back on the ground with only additional landing gear damage, i.e. blowing the tires). So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume it should be flyable with a tail stab missing ;)

If you are going to fly online and you have a broadband connection, teamspeak is the way to go since CombatACE provides a free host. During WOE beta testing, we had as many as 6 of us online at one time and teamspeak provides an important solution to the problems caused by trying to type chat entries while flying.

I forgot one great pic of a German Eagle with turkey feathers (from the F-15 Playbook): Oops! It is the same pic from the other book, just on a larger scale. Apparently a popular one.

Boeing needs to make an updated version. the score has gotten quite a bit higher since that was published.

The stock WOE F-15A definitely has the wing pylons too close to the fuselage. I can't say exactly how much they need to be moved. Is there a way to hex edit the positions of the pylons in the LOD file without the source file? For reference, look at where the red marking is on the leading edge of the wing versus the attachment point.

I couldn't match the field of view/distance/distortion, so I did the best I could. I was impressed at how well the canopy rails, the canopy shape, and the antenna aft of the canopy all lined up... almost perfectly! Obviously the intakes, the Sparrow, and the wing pylon don't line up very well. Some of that involves differences between the distance and field of view used to make the photo. Some may be the result of model inaccuracy? Has anybody ever checked the alignment of the wing pylons? This pic makes it look like the WOE model has the pylons too close to the fuselage. Here is the shot from WOE: Here it is merged with the real photo: And for reference the original photo from the post above:

Both the WOE and MF F-15s do have a slight taper at the intakes (perhaps too slight? difficult to tell because there is no way to project the outline onto a flat picture via the game engine). Their general outlines are almost identical from the top, except for the wingtips and canopies. Whereas LOMAC appears to use less polygons and is by far the least accurate of all 3 from a top view. LOMAC's intake taper is excessive as easily depicted in the original pics at the top of this post. Prior to this post, I don't recall any other post on any other forum that compared these models in any way. All of the posts I recall reached the unanimous conclusion that the stock WOE model should be immediately replaced by the the MF model. The whole point of this post was to compare and contrast the differences to allow people to make an informed decision rather than blindly following the crowd. If in the course of this discussion, the MF takes a look and decides to improve their model, that would be great! But given the number of projects they have and the time they alreday spent on the F-15, I don't expect it. Given that no further model revisions are going to become available, why shouldn't people be aware of the tradeoffs? It is my opinion that the photos and drawings suggest that the most accurate F-15A available for the timeframe of WOE is the stock model. The textures and decals are an entirely separate issue which can be resolved easily in comparsion to building and editing 3d models.

The drawing you used is inaccurate to begin with (which I mentioned in my post) I scanned in a drawing from a book that is much better: WOE: MF: