FastCargo

Er, I hope the annoyance is with the paint job, not the model... FC

False. The person below me denies the difference between it's and its. FC

Little too much Red Bull today? FC

What? Aren't there subdirectories in the file you downloaded? FC

Go to the Knowledge Base. Start here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=25845 and here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=26456 Then here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=26293 Take your time and read these sections...you will NEED to know what these mean before you proceed ANY farther. FC

The sim does not truly model TFR. What you are seeing is TA radar. Ground radar has been fixed in Avionics70 with the Oct08 patch. The best way to figure out how to add it to the A-6 is to see into the Su-24 data, avionics and cockpit inis to see what is different and then cut and paste. FC

Easy. Go to the data.ini and look for the landing gear entries. You should see a line that says RotationAxis=X-AXIS (or something similar). If not, add that line and experiment. USUALLY it's the X-AXIS...but if not, try the Y or Z axis. FC

What he said. We take a VERY dim view of piracy here. FC

If you've got the space, simply make a duplicate of your current install and then patch it up. Or, as an alternative, make a clean install of WOE, patch it up, then copy your mods over to it. Most will be drag and drop...and most will still work about the same. Either way, there isn't anything preventing you from having both a unpatched and patched up install (other than disk space). That way, you can decide for yourself. FC

Topics merged. RIP. FC

Well then, go check your couple of things. The MF has not released any aircraft that are officially compatible with SF2 yet. Like I said, you have textures missing...find them and you're good to go. FC

Y'all are missing a texture somewhere...just find out where the texture is and put it in the right spot. Having said that, I have no idea where to look. FC

Bring on the T-6! FC

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510082,00.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=asia A prayer to everyone's families during this tragic time. FC PS I know some of you may be tempted to post the video of the MD-11 accident here. I would ask that you don't for now.

I've seen this happen when the computer system is getting stressed. My suspicion is that TK's sim detects when it's getting close to running out of video memory when loading and starts loading lower res textures or no textures. FC

"Another shaker unit for her chair" I am SO not going there... FC

Why? I'm married to a Canuck and I don't know it either... FC

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=19550 Second post...tells exactly how to add a carrier to WOE and gives a concrete example using the stock WOE campaign. FC

I suspect it's the shared memory issue. I'm just up on this OLD laptop and SFP1 works fine (in 16 bit mode) even if it's a ATI 7500 with 32MB of memory. FC

We've known about those pylons since before the model was improved. The non rotating pylons were simply not modeled because their use was rare to non-existant. We do research these kind of things. As far as the cancellation goes, again, if the model no longer meets the new requirement because the circumstances have changed, then it's good that it was cancelled. FC

But that doesn't matter. If the author is going to compare the 2 aircraft (by the way, his arguments in the paragraph you quoted are based on carrier handling, which doesn't affect how good either aircraft is as a missiler or a dogfighter) then he needs to compare all their facets as a whole. It could also be argued that the author is being unfair to compare a projected production model to another aircraft that did not exist yet. Plenty of unfairness to go around. FC

That's usually caused by fairly large skins (more than 1024 by 1024). It can also be caused by aircraft exported with the 'decal' option...which gets rid of decal bleed, in exchange for lower frame rates. That's my theory anyway... FC

But he's comparing a supposed production version of the B model vs what actually went into service with the Tomcat. All aircraft gain weight from supposed production weight to actual production weight unless features are eliminated or reduced. That 8% would have grown more than likely. Also, that puts into question the 21% ground roll numbers...because the B model was a prototype again being compared to a production Tomcat. Finally, no mention is made here on the actual air to air capabilities of the aircraft, in particular the fire control/radar system and close range bfm capabilities. One of the things about the Tomcat was the large wing glove area made it a surprisingly agile dogfighter. I doubt that claim would ever be made by the F-111. Also, and this is more in the I'm not sure arena, I was under the impression some compromises had been made in the radar area because of the short nose...which wasn't the case with the Tomcat. However, take anything said on either side with a bit of salt. Politics has killed more than it's share of aircraft, no matter what capabilities they may have had. FC

You don't suppose an FM can cause a CTD? I've been seeing some wierd stuff during B-1B prototype FM testing. I've been getting a consistent CTD if I try to stall with the gear down...but not with the gear up. Stock terrain, stock SFP1 install. Yet, this CTD has been inconsistent across users. FC