FastCargo

Perhaps you should. Let me give you a real world example. Do you wear a helmet everytime you ride your bicycle? Have you installed a rollcage in your car? Or do you wear a full nomex suit and helmet when you drive everyday? Have you worn a parachute when you fly commerically? Or do you wear a oxygen mask when walking around your city? If you said no to ANY one of these questions...you've just put something ahead of safety. FC

Seems to me I vaguely remember that weekend.... FC

There is no way to angle the seat as a seat. If you turn it into a weapon, then you can play with it. FC

You really don't comprend how the world works, do you? You want to be safe? Don't fly. We put safety in something less than first place everytime we fly (hell, most of the time when we drive too). FC

Jarhead is exactly correct. In simple terms, tobacco, alcohol, weed are all substances that impair you to some extent or other. All have long term destructive effects as well. You can't argue for or against one without the same logical (ie non-faith based) argument for the others. And Anthony W., yet another lesson...if you can't handle staying in a topic you started, maybe you should think about the ramifications before you decide to post. FC

Actually, depending on fuel source, a Frenchman named Cugnot back in the late 1700s is considered to have invented the first road going self propelled vehicle (it used steam). Now Karl Benz is widely considered the first inventor of a practical internal combusion gasoline powered vehicle in 1885. Though Damiler worked on a parallel project with similiar results (independently). The first auto manufacturers were actually Panhard & Levassor (1889) and Peugeot (1891), both French companies. Damiler and Benz didn't actually produce cars until after that...instead making money on patents and royalties of said patents. Where the United States comes into play is the invention of the basic assembly line (Olds) and improvement with a conveyor belt type setup (Ford) which allows Ford to become the world's biggest car manufacturer after 1913 (Ford has since been surpassed by others). Yep, POTUS goofed. That's as far as this thread goes folks because otherwise, it will get ugly...it always does. FC

The Arrow is a nice plane...but folks were already flying Mach 2+ with just one engine by that point. The FBW on the other hand was significant...though rudimentary. Now, no more thread hijacking. FC

Dude, glad to hear it! FC

I honestly wish folks would do a bit of research before posting stuff like this. A 2 minute google would have told you the F-108 had already existed at some point...even if it was no farther along than a mockup. Secondly, the F-108 didn't go through 2 proposals. The design constantly evolved as the requirements changed and a better handle on the technology was gained. Hell, it even went through more changes AFTER it was cancelled...a design North American released in 1960 looked almost like something you'd see in an anime...with huge LERXs, large folding ventral fins, etc. There are several books and articles which detail the requirement, evolution, and cancellation of the F-108...most of them about the XB-70. About the only thing I haven't seen in any of the articles is a decent picture of the rear of the aircraft. The USAF and NA had even proposed having thrust reversers instead of drag chutes... Though there never was an aircraft, the development of the weapon system contributed significantly to what would eventually become the AIM-54 Phoenix. Also, if you want to get an idea of just how large and what the layout of the aircraft would have been (minus the cranked arrow wing), take a close look at the A-5 Vigilante. FC

Considering what you are using as a basis for the model, it doesn't surprise me. You could grab the original F-18F model EricJ uploaded here as a basis for a better product...it'll take longer to get it out though. FC

You didn't fully comprehend what I said I think. Lets take the can again. Remember when I said if you are inside the can, you can't see the can? Now, lets cut a hole in the can...actually, lets make it a cup, just cut off the top. Around the outside...it looks like a can with the top cut off...at least until you look down into the cup. Even though you are outside of the can, looking 'into' the can...guess what...you can't see the inner faces at all. If you are still unclear on the concept, get Gmax (free), build a cylinder, and in properties, say 'backface cull'. Then cut off the top, and look at it a bit. You'll figure it out. FC

Having flown an aircraft with 3 sets of internal bay doors, I can tell you that the drag was minor when the bay doors were open. They did have speed limits for use, but they certainly weren't big huge brakes in the slip stream. FC

Okay, I see we need a lesson in basic aerodynamics here. First, the rudder is part of the vertical stabilizer, or vert stab for short. The vert stab is simply a symmetrical wing, mounted vertically. Which means the rudder is an aileron in the vertical direction. So, lets look at what happens when you apply left rudder. The rudder deflects left, increasing the force (think of it as an arrow) toward the right. That force pushes the tail right, causing the aircraft to yaw left like you would expect. However, if the rudder is significantly above the aircraft CG, the force toward the right is also above the CG, which induces a roll to the RIGHT. Normally, especially in swept wing aircraft, the roll opposite the yaw induced by the rudder is eventually overcome by the wing yawing 'into' the wind, causing more lift, and inducing a roll back into the direction of the rudder. FC

Well, faces of the model are usually one sided. In other words, if you have a model of a simple can...on the outside, it's solid, but if you were viewing from the inside, the can would be invisible. It also means in the case you are referring to, the model was not designed with a outside visible cockpit. FC

I've been looking for that DVD myself. I did enjoy it...always thought it was a 'fun' movie...not too serious. Plus, Jennifer Connelly is hot.... FC

Jeez, while going back and forth with the team, I just realized that this release (with all 3 variants, A2A rail and fuel tank models, and skin templates) is going to be over 500 MB in size uncompressed! Better make some room on the hard drive y'all! FC

Okay, dude, that just ain't right... Fates, sorry to hear about that man. I know far too many folks in the same boat (I've flown with a LOT of Captains who've had that checkout program...). FC

SaE (sorry man, I'm too lazy to type the whole thing, besides, it looks cool...), Anyway, the pylons are actually already set up like that. We have a specific weapon station for the AHM/IRM because they require a specific launch rail. An example: Also, the TW engine is actually fairly clever here. If you load only one weapon, it will load it using the LaunchRail node below the pylon node. However, if you load 2 weapons, it will NOT show the single launch rail, and instead, load the dual rail setup located in the weapons folder. This saves the modeler from making an inbuilt dual launch rail model on the aircraft like the MF FA-18A. In addition, it more appropriately simulates what the real aircraft does. Unfortunately, you can't tell a single weapon station to use more than one kind of launch rail, otherwise, you could combine weapon stations. For example: Note that this weapon station and the one above it both use the same parent mesh (LeftMiddlePylon), but the missile type needs a different kind of rail (in real life). Which is modeled here. But, because of this reality, you now need another weapon station. And this doesn't even take into account the SAHM and ARMs which, though in real life use different rails, in the TW series, are shown as non-rail launched weapons, and therefore require a whole new pylon with the 'rail' attached already: Note you don't see a LaunchRailNode, because the sim won't try to load it anyway. So the whole pylon with launch rail is built in MAX and loaded instead...which simulates the look of the pylon with the ARM rail 'attached'. I even made the mapping for these pylons in the exact same location on a 3rd bitmap (SHPods.bmp), so a potential skinner can 'cut and paste' his textures from one to the other with little to no massaging. Sheesh...long answer to a short question. Anyway, if anyone is curious, it's me primarily that's holding up the release. The last scouring of the all the text (inis, readmes, etc) requires me to have a few hours of dedicated, uninterrupted time to make sure everything looks and works right. But I'm home right now with my wife and 2 boys, so until I'm back on the road in a few days, I can't make any significant progress. FC

I see it now...what happens is that when you tell the wingmen to 'Engage Air' they automatically drop any A2G ordinance...I suspect that is the culprit. Once the Slammers leave the station, the AI considers the rack a A2G device and drops it. For those who don't know, the limit on weapon stations is 32 for any aircraft. That number, in combination with the increase in number of pylons and specialized rails for different weapons (AHM/SAHM/EOGR/ARM each require a different type of rail...which means just those weapons already take up 24 weapon stations) If you include centerline, wingtip, Sparrow/Slammer, and Pod stations (another 6 stations) you are already at 30 weapon stations...that's before you get into specialized hardware. FC

Most stock/3rd party aircraft use a tga file called...you guessed it...canopyglass.tga. It's just a small file with a specified amount of transparency in the Alpha layer. Also, if the canopies dissappear, it could mean the file they are calling for is completely clear (total masking in the Alpha channel). So you may have to make a new one with the amount of transparency/color that you want. FC

You know, I'm just not sure of the purpose of this thread. There is true tragedy out there every day. Exposing your issues usually causes two things: 1) It turns into a "Who had a crappier day" contest... 2) Posters start firing back with "Get a reality check" posts... Either or both ways, the thread usually starts going badly because someone gets annoyed and the flames start. I'm going to say this...while misery loves company...company usually doesn't love misery back. I'm keeping this thread open...for now. FC

Really? That's bizarre...they shouldn't do that. Or at least I don't THINK they should do that...I know that TERs/MERs don't do such a thing after they've been emptied. Eric and crew, sorry I haven't said much in the way of feedback lately, I just haven't had the time to dedicate to a full scouring of the release candidates. Time with the family. For others who have been monitoring the process, this is another thing to consider when having a team comprised of members not in close proximity. Schedules can sometimes be completely out of sync...where one person can get a bunch of stuff done, but others may not have the time...or vice versa, where someone is waiting twiddling their thumbs because another person hasn't been working on the project. FC

The product is NOT available by download. Please read the whole thread or go to their website to get the information. FC

What the man said. No coaster I know of can sustain 9.0 Gs for any length of time. Trust me, unless you put yourself in a 'fuge, or an actual high perf aircraft, you ain't simulating it anytime soon. I've got video of myself going from 1.0 to 8.33 G...you can't simulate what you see on it. Trust me on this one. FC

Touch screens are the only way I would enjoy a clickable cockpit in a sim. You won't experience a black out with a G suit...unless you decide to have it choke you. Probably not a good idea unless you're into that sort of thing. FC