FastCargo

JM and Ruggbutt, A-friggin-men! FC

There are several factors in play here before anyone gets TOO excited in either direction. First, the economy is still in the tank more or less. There's been debate for a long time over who's fault it is...but honestly, both parties had a hand in it. You can go back and forth and still not come up with a clear answer. Anyway, a sputtering economy almost always hurts the party in power at election time. Second, for all the flack GWB administration got for backroom dealing, not listening to 'the people', etc., the Obama administration has really shown that they aren't any better at avoiding this. In some ways, it's been even more blatent with regards to the healthcare overhaul (Nebraska's sweetheart deal, unions' healthcare non-taxation, rushing a HUGE bill through the legislature). Third, government expansion in general. The United States population more or less has always had a mild distrust of the government. Part of it of course goes back to our roots. You can also look at more recent histories of government overstepping it's bounds. All of these make people leery. What's especially damning is seeing numbers showing government jobs actually increasing in pay and numbers while the private sector takes it on the chin. I wouldn't consider this a revolution. What I would say however, is that BOTH parties need to start paying attention. In this day and age where more and more people can get their information from non-traditional news services, the 'throw the bums out' attitude continues to spread. The biggest thing that would shake both parties up would be a third party (like Libertarians) to start having a stronger influence in the political arena. Hopefully, that would cause both parties to stop trying to be monolithic (Since I believe A, I have to believe B because that's how we roll in our party) and maybe listen a bit more. People want leaders, not lawyers. Unfortunately, that's all they've got in Washington right now are lawyers. FC

EricJ, Send it to me, I'll take a look. (3ds Max 9, or 3ds Max 2009?) FC

Not that I have seen. The model is roughly the same model that Squiffy is having problems with. In fact, I added polygons to it during the update. The reason I have seen as to why it isn't self shadowing properly comes down to if the mesh considers itself 'concave' or 'convex'. If it is convex, it shadows properly. If it's concave, it won't shadow. I've seen this on models I've done where I've put too many 'dents' into the mesh. The problem is that it's not always easy to tell if the mesh has too many inward 'dents'... FC

Well, for all intents and purposes, the freeware accords agreement is basically what Kess said anyway. I'd say add him to the list, just put a note next to his name saying he was added by proxy via USAFMTL...that way we can blame Dave if anything goes wrong. FC

Specify...what distortion do you mean? Also, if you have a beta, there may be something in it that doesn't allow SF2I to work right. FC

Not really. KMD or Le Missioner will get you close. But there is nothing that is integrated into the TW front end or is as easy to use. FC

The Razbam skyraiders are NOT freeware. Razbam has already stated there will be a SF2 compatible version someday. FC

We expect stories from Food Flag! FC

TK has said himself that there won't be an SF3 for DX11. He doesn't see it being worth the effort because DX11 doesn't bring enough new to the table to justify upgrading the engine over DX10. And since Microsoft probably isn't going with a new OS for a while... Therefore, my guess would be that I could see a F-14 centered sim (maybe an SF2:Libya) with the new terrain model (which he has publically said he's been working on), but still based on the overall SF2 engine. FC

Certain loadouts are asymmetrical and cannot be loaded in the loadout screen. What you are seeing is the sims' response. The screen will show the slot as empty, but the little circles will show as filled. If you mess with the loadout screen at all, you will not retain the asymmetric loadout. What matters is the weapons showing up on the pylons in the correct fashion. These inis are based on real world loadouts for these aircraft, and so, there will be some asymmetry. This is normal. FC

I'm working on a potential fix. I've managed to get rid of one of the triangles so far. The other will take more time for me to troubleshoot. FC

Hey, I got land up there I'm going to retire on! FC

It is a bright idea...get on that will ya? FC

There is no DX10 for XP as released by Microsoft. By default that means that SF2 is running in DX9, which also means (I think) the UseAdvancedShaders parameter is not used (ie is zero). FC PS Nope, I'm wrong...even if I force DX9, the triangles don't show up as long as the UseAdvancedShaders parameter is set to 1.

Alrighty folks, I got some good news and I got some bad news. The good news is that I was able to duplicate the problem after I went into the OPTIONS.INI and set the UseAdvancedShaders= parameter to zero. The bad news...the problem is within the cockpit MAX file and can only be fixed by the cockpit creator. It seems now that meshes that are not assigned a material when exported (ie assigned a texture or color) will now show up as bright white that can be seen through everything. I figured this out after looking closely at the OUT file for the cockpit. In the older days, a mesh with an unassigned material might still be white, just not show through anything. Unfortunately, the only way it can be fixed from what I can tell is either turn the UseAdvancedShaders= parameter back to 1, or fix the cockpit MAX file. FC

I was thinking that too...the beta tester who had the problem was force running DX9 on SF2. FC

One of our testers encountered this problem as well. I was never able to duplicate the problem. And I didn't hear back as to if the problem went away (I assume it did) with a later beta release. FC

The Blue Danube, while watching 2001. 40+ years later and it still looks good...James Cameron could learn a thing or two. FC

All Northrop 2 seaters have now been updated to SF2/V/E/I December 2009 patch levels. Includes the T-38A, AT-38B, F-5B, F-5F, CF-116D. Just redownload the aircraft and reinstall them. FC

Saeqeh released. Also, for those who may be sitting on the fence about the release of older aircraft (F-111, some of the F-15s), realize that it isn't just that they've been brought up to SF2 Dec 2009 standards. There have been a whole bunch of changes to the aircraft, bug fixes, tweaks, etc. In addition, the F-15 strikers have a brand new cockpit...that alone is worth the download. FC

F-107 updated...includes the F-107A and F-107C model. FC

Again, it would depend on what you want it to do? Being able to carry as many missiles or weapons as a F-15? Same range, etc. Any aircraft that can do that is no longer light. Out turning an F-15 or MiG-29? Sure, but what are you willing to sacrifice...range? Speed? Weapons capability? Being manned? Again, your conditions are vague. FC

Your questions are a bit fraught with pitfalls: 1. 'Light' and 'Ultra Light' are very relative terms. For instance, a F-105 might be considered 'light' against a fighter like the 'Fiddler', but is a heavy aircraft compared to something like the F-104. 2. The term 'best' is too vague and also full of opinions...best turn, speed, radius of action, cost effectiveness? Your questions are interesting for discussion, but don't expect any absolutes. FC

Actually, though there are callouts for the fuel flow needles in the cockpit.ini, they have not been put into the cockpit model yet. They would be in that location otherwise (I think). Remember, the cockpit is Beta (a very nice beta...but still a beta). As far as the blurriness goes, I suspect that may be your settings...it seems nice and clear in the pic. FC Heh...the things that I come up with at 1AM in the morning... FC