FastCargo

Roger that! I'll tell ya, he shouldn't EVER have to buy his own drink in any bar again... FC

Actually, it depends. The problem here is it looks like he let the folks on the ground 'fly' his aircraft for him. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened...usually to someone inexperienced in the aircraft. A similiar situation happened WAY back while I was going through pilot training. An IP in our flight, relatively new in the aircraft, was in the air with one of my classmates, when they got an asymmetric flap indication. Instead of fully following the checklist, he got on the horn with the SOF, who got on the phone with Stan/Eval and Northrop. They tried all sort of troubleshooting, pulling CBs, Aux Flap, etc, all based on guidance from the 'experts' on the ground. They basically ended up getting him into a FULLY asymmetric flap condition instead of his original slight asymmetric flap. He was able to land the aircraft, with great difficulty. He and the student had to keep switching off who was flying because they were getting fatigued holding the stick at near full deflection. After landing, they find out that until that point...a full asymmetric flap condition had not been considered landable. So much for the ground experts. Ultimately, it's still your ass in that seat, therefore, like I teach my students, take charge. Don't let the guy sitting in his comfy chair on the ground cause you to make bad decisions. Make sure he gets you the info you need, but then you make the decision. FC

Actually, I can't see guns ever being handled like that. Guns have no LODs, textures, etc...all they have are effects. FC

Thanks for the update. I'd be curious as to why the pilot was set on Miramar. I've always been taught that if I'm single engine, to land ASAP at the nearest suitable field. However, it is always easy to second guess while at zero airspeed and altitude. FC

Specifically, you need each weapon station to have it's own animation. If 2 weapon types share the same bay, you have to have them on the same weapon station entry...with it's own animation. More than one weapon can share a moving pylon (like a rocket pod), but again, it's own weapon station entry is needed). FC

Got some bad news for ya V2K...each one of those bays needs it's OWN animation slot if you want Auto bays to work properly on each of them. Which means you need 6 available animation slots. Other options include making some of them manual bays so you can combine slots. Or, if you can find a way to combine some of the slots (have multiple AttachmentPositions for a single weapon station). If you're still at a loss...give me til tonite and I'll send you my XF-103 as an example. FC

Do you have any other bays that use that animation. If you do, it won't work consistently. FC

Guys, I want to do a new mod for the TW series. There would only be one or 2 aircraft. Most targets would simply be balloons. There would be no campaigns. Probably no crashes. Simple targeting, no HUD text, no comm. Aircraft skin choices would be limited to color. Multiplayer would be dogfight only. Menu options would be limited to keep within these boundries. Sounds like something only a young child would like, right? You would be correct. For those who don't know, my older son has mild autism. He loves aircraft, one of the first words he's spoken has been 'airplane'. I'm going to do a mod just for him, and for any other children with similar issues and interests. What I want to know is what ideas do you all have. Things that need to be done include 'decontenting' the sim to remove most of the military stuff (mainly just limit menu options). Remove all voice work. Most of this stuff I can do on my own. If anyone wants to help, you're more than welcome to. For anyone with ideas, post them here. Keep it simple (remember the target audience/user). For those who might be thinking about doing something in poor taste on this board...I would very strongly advise against it. FC

Been making progress: Not just skins...bunches of other stuff to validate gameplay mechanics: 1. All aircraft removed. Only 4 aircraft available: Small Blue Jet, Large Blue Jet, Small Red Jet, Large Red Jet. (Jets are T-38 and a large fighter aircraft). 2. Aircraft are guns only, no externals available. 3. Weapons and guns removed from sim...only one type gun available. Therefore, anything not using that guntype will not have armament (no SAMs, AAA, etc). 4. All speech disabled. 5. Aircraft can only be assigned reconnaissance. 6. Only 2 nations (Red and Blue) and 2 squadrons (1st Red and 1st Blue Squadron) available. 7. Templates created for both aircraft. Simple to make basic color changes. Things to do: 1. Menu...harder than I thought...doesn't quite work logically at times. 2. Effects - something other than normal gun effects and being on fire. 3. A 'floating balloon'. Hinch, your zeppelin that you made for FE would actually work real nice. I've already been using it in other projects. 4. Decals...nose and wing art...maybe other skins. 5. Decision on a normal cockpit view or external view (like Ace Combat). FC

Can you put up a couple of pictures of the situation? From different views, with the detail on where the gear joins into the wing? FC

That's a spin chute. It's used to force the nose down if the aircraft gets into a spin it can't get out of. You see a lot of aircraft while going through test phase have that chute fitted on. As far as the AoA goes, note that more modern aircraft, including the later versions of the Su-27, F-22, F-35, etc, can all do similiar things with AoA, and not have FSW. Except for the S-47 Berkut, which was only a tech demonstrator, you'll note no modern or future combat fighters have FSW...not even the PAK-FA that folks have been going on about. FC

Check in the data.ini first. Make sure the entries for the left and right are exactly symmetrical, including things like rolling radius, shock travel values, etc. Also, while in the air, do the gear look symmetrical? Retract symmetrically? FC

"I'm not saying anything. I did not say anything then, and I'm not saying anything now."

Here's a couple of documents Florian sent me that helped me with building my cockpit: cockpit_movement_detail.txt GaugeList.txt Use this in combination with several cockpit.ini files and you will start figuring out how it works. Example: [internalFuelGauge] Type=INETERNAL_FUEL_QUANTITY_INDICATOR <---- Note TK spelled it wrong...so that's how you have to spell it. NodeName=needle_int_fuel <---- What you want to move MovementType=ROTATION_Y ValueUnit=LB Set[01].Position=-160.0 Set[01].Value=0.0 Set[02].Position=150.0 Set[02].Value=9000.0 Pretty self explanatory. Other types may require a bit more work. Pretty much, you need to fiddle. FC

What's an F-14 Temp? FC

Yep. Scale is your issue there Viggy. (Heh, I said Viggy...heh). FC

As far as I know, all versions of the Super Hornet will be released as a single download. A note on belly landings: This occured to me during one of my tests. I realized back in the Korean Air War mod days that belly landings weren't modeled well when I tried landing a damaged F-80. I touched it down as light as possible, slow, flat with all my surfaces hanging out...should have been a textbook 'scrape and run'. Instead I crashed...foul! Belly landings have been surprisingly uneventful for certain aircraft. There's video out there of a T-38, F-16, F-18 all doing belly landings and the pilots walking (running) away with minor injuries. It annoys me that you can't do that with certain aircraft. So I set out to fix that with the Super Hornet. You can belly land with it...but it takes a light, smooth touchdown below a certain speed. Also, you need to keep it straight once you touchdown. And finally, don't try this on a carrier...you will probably be a statistic. It's not completely realistic (you don't scrape or catch fire, and not all the parts that should fall off do fall off), but it will suffice for those times you take damage and need to massage it back to a friendly runway. FC

Working on this bird, and this thread has sort of been a multi faceted experience. Some notes: 1) Detailing the process as was done in this thread (seeing a bit behind the curtain) is a double edged sword. On the one hand, everyone gets to see the process involved, and just how much effort goes into making an aircraft mod (more about that in a bit). You can get a good idea of what's involved, how far along is the progress, and what kind of unexpected things crop up. It also allows the modders to be able to get info out in a forum manner, verses constant PMs back and forth. However, it sort of removes some of the surprises that are available for those waiting to download (no 'it's Christmas!' feeling) and can be a distraction for modders if everyone and their brother starts trying to have a say in the model (too many cooks). And of course, time is taken away from modeling when we have to post here. Each project is a bit different, and some may lend themselves well to this format, while others may not. 2) This project proceeded fairly rapidly, but it had several advantages, mainly certain things already existed, including a cockpit, effects, sounds, pilot and seat models, and an appropriate FM. And of course, the original aircraft model. The cockpit in particular can be a HUGE time and effort sink. My T-38/AT-38B cockpit took so much out of me (it's still not textured) that I determined I will never build another one. Not having that to deal with was a huge motivator. Aircraft models are much easier to deal with overall. Another project that I'm working on literally only took me 5 days from clean sheet to a fully mapped and in game aircraft model. Premade aircraft models are also a love/hate thing. On the one hand, all the curves, shapes, etc are usually good. But, the downside is rarely the model you start with is fully ready to be in game. Things like pivot points, mapping (which is VERY tedious), extruding cockpits, and all the detail bits can frustrating if they need to be done on the fly. I've found it's actually MUCH easier to map the model, then separate and animate parts. Supposedly, this has gotten easier with newer versions of MAX. Anyway, having an aircraft model means you also have to deal with how the person who made it did things...which may not be the way you do things...which can be a handful. 3) I used this project as a test bed for all sorts of modeling tricks and enhancements, which lengthened the development time. Sometimes, the overwhelming perfectionist (some would say anal) drive combined with the 'urge to fiddle' can REALLY test the limits of what exactly should be done with a project. However, the flip side is that all these techniques for the various things tried and incorperated or rejected will improve the next project....and as you get better, you get faster at it. Part of what caused my other project currently being worked to go so quickly from clean sheet to flyable mapped model was being able to 'borrow' parts and techniques from other projects. 4) Finally, overall, this has been a whole lot of fun and very informative. I've learn lot about the Super Hornet and modeling, which is never a bad thing. We think you guys are really going to like this one... FC

Alrighty folks, keep the politics out. A warning. FC