FastCargo

Destroyed models do not need the same mesh names at all. My destroyed models are just one piece, usually 'Carcass' or something like that. FC

For me, I find it's usually faster to just start over, especially in regards to shaping. It's one thing to just add bits and pieces or make new cuts. It's quite another to have to reshape, because you usually have to start manipulating individual vertexes...which can get eye poking. FC

Well, I'd say the only reason he'd dive into the KAW is because no one else is doing it. Since the engine is already outdated (more or less), I don't think that is as much of a factor. He already has several assets that could be used in KAW with very little modification. Pretty much the big things he would need to create that don't exist at present are a Sabre (with cockpit...), B-29s as AI, some appropriate ground objects, and a terrain. That would be a minimum needed to be marketable. FC

Yea, I can't see him doing cockpits for Red air anytime soon, if ever. Too much time/money for not enough (perceived) market. The exception I might see is if he decides the next wave of PC releases after Exp3 focuses on the KAW...then I could see a Mig-15 pit. Maybe. FC

Yea, don't let the lack of AA on those screenshots fool ya...it's a pretty nice model. Which is why I think those saying Exp3 is dead are premature. TK used assets from the PC games to make SFA and SFA:I...there is nothing that says you can't do it the other way around. FC

Interesting...SFA:I has just passed half a million downloads in a month...exceeding the original SFA download numbers. That has me curious, since the gameplay is the same, and the number of aircraft (I think) do not exceed the number and variety of aircraft in SFA. I keep thinking of the revenue stream...if 1 person per 10 paid for one aircraft in SFA:I, that's 50,000 dollars in a month. Obviously that rate isn't sustainable, but dang. FC

This really should not surprise anyone here. After all, most of us here are using virtual worlds to entertain ourselves rather than spending time, money, and energy trying to get and fly a replica of a WWI fighter. Between all the options kids have for entertainment indoors and overprotective parents, this really shouldn't surprise or upset many folks. FC

What I don't understand sometimes is the schizophrenic nature of those sorts of things that Iran does. You can have genuine pluses like the US drone capture be thrown totally into doubt when you release several other scoops of clearly fake stuff, like the photoshopped missile test, photoshopped VTOL drone, and this so called aircraft clearly done badly. Not to mention the 'did they or didn't they' space monkey shot. It clearly makes them hard to take seriously and calls into question their whole technical acumen. Think about it...if you can't build a fake aircraft properly, how seriously will anyone take claims of real technological advancement. If you're going to fake it, at least be convincing. FC

Wow, that does explain a lot...

Cliff, Great find! I'd be curious how many cockpit models use separate meshes for the canopy verses for the windscreen. FC

It took me a while to figure it out, but there was something familiar about the general planform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_X-36 FC

It uses the brake chute like a weapon in the bomb bay. I actually designed something similar....you could 'drop' the chute and it would lie there on the ground. Was possible to use with any aircraft that did not have a bomb bay. FC

Does it matter? Is it THAT important? Do you have so little to worry about that knowing if you are going to get more new PC stuff occupies that much attention? Folks, let me burst some bubbles here: TK has said himself there will NOT be a SF3. Which means, for all intents and purposes, the SF engine development is probably done. No new features other than what was introduced with SF2:NA. If you're looking for air refueling and multiplayer, you're probably not going to get it. If you're looking for more detailed avionics such as slewing cursors for targeting, you're probably not going to get that either. What you will probably see is DLC/Exp and maybe new theatres/conflicts (Korean War anyone?). And that is probably it. Developers do not need to elaborate on future plans unless some folks have already pre-paid for future content. In fact, one could say by not explaining what the future plans are, it avoids building up the hype balloon which is then popped when the developer has to scale back. Bug fixes, yea, that's something that needs addressing. I think it is a bit of disservice to not at least try to run those down with an acknowledgement if nothing else. But what you have isn't going to disappear off your hard drive just because TW doesn't give you regular updates. FC

My opinion, for what little it is worth, is that, again, people are jumping to conclusions about PC development. Like someone else said, the Mig-25 has been in the ini entry's for a while. Also, looking at the construction of things like SFA, TK reuses a lot of assets. If something is built for SFA, it can be (or already is) used in the in the SF2 series, right down to the textures. We've already seen a couple of assets in SFA that aren't available in SF2 yet. For all intents and purposes, TK gets a two-fer...a new asset that can generate money right away, and can be put into Exp 3. Again, whatever happens to the SF series for PC has nothing to do with what you already have. FC

Say...does any version of SF have a MiG-25 as a TW aircraft? Because the newest update to SFA has just added one. FC

Except at the box office and most reviews: The Star Trek franchise was in the crapper after Enterprise and Nemesis. Whatever you may think of the JJ Abrams reboot, it made the franchise profitable again. FC

Very sad news. RIP.

Oh now you done dood it...ya had to talk about falling dollars. LL can smell a conversation about fiat money like a shark smelling blood in the water...:). FC

Depends on the aircraft. 3rd party, maybe. TW native...maybe before a certain patch date. FC

Awwww man!!! That ain't right!!! Not at all! FC

I've got the following: SF2 SF2V SF2E SF2E + Exp 2 SF2I SF2I + Exp 1 SF2NA SF2 Merged (all of the above) Basically, I run 8 discrete installs....the idea is that I can test my mods in any enviroment to see what works or doesn't. What I did was run each install separately in it's own directory, then copied the directories (not the mod directories, but the actual program directories). I then uninstalled all of them, then reinstalled a Merged setup under SF2 Merged as the directory. Then ran each exe to build the mod directories. Within each mod directory, I altered the Version.ini to only show TRUE for the specific exe files needed, then made the Version.ini read only. Here's the weird thing...if I run (say the SF2V) the standalone exe, pointing at the default mod directory, it only shows the stuff available to a stand alone version of SF2V. If I run the merged version of the SF2V exe, pointing at the same mod directory, it shows ALL of the available stuff in a merged install, overriding the Version.ini file. Don't know why it works, but it does. And doing a standard copy/rename exe for the various exes (standalone or merged) results in mod install with the proper objects/terrains available. FC

Here's the thing...you are burning money building a non-combat aircraft for an air combat sim. You can just as easily learn how to move up to more complex aircraft by building an earlier year vintage aircraft that people want. Oh, like an F-5, or F-105, A-4, A-7, A-6. And DCS filling the spot left by MSFS? I'll believe that when I start seeing airliners being released and ultra detailed terrains with awesome airports. I want DCS to succeed...but some of the things I'm seeing have me concerned. FC

Go to this thread to figure out how to implement the feature: http://combatace.com/topic/61803-multiple-aircraft-taking-off-from-runway-at-once/ There are limitations though. FC

I always thought training in a trainer in a virtual air force to be kind of redundant. What I mean is this...in a simulated environment, everything is controlled. The idea is to use the simulator to get you up to speed in procedures and maneuvers that cannot be practiced in the aircraft (losing an engine on takeoff for example). But for normal procedures, it doesn't matter how much you practice in the simulator...you get on to the 'line' and a whole bunch of new stimuli are competing for your attention. In the real world, these real world training flights teach you to 'timeshare', to build that basic 'airmanship' that you carry onward from aircraft to aircraft. But assuming you're spending the jack on flight simulators for PCs, you probably already have as much basic airmanship as you are going to get in a simulated environment. Much better to spend your time getting up to speed on the specific aircraft you want to fly, and specific tactics your squadron/clan/troop/whatever wants you to learn. The only time I would spend on building a basic training program is if someone wants to learn who has no idea what military flying (or flying in general) is. FC

Those entries won't work...you're rotating the hands. What you need to be doing is positioning the hands. Use POSITION_Z instead of ROTATION_Z. FC