FastCargo

Funny thing about the doing the Varks, with all the research I found, there was enough differences that of all the 10 variants built or ordered, only 2 pairs could share the same LOD file...otherwise darn near every version had to have it's own unique LOD file. FC

Crop-duster? You mean the same one that was on SimHQ? As Crop-duster/milkweg/meep? It's funny, you always have to ask..."If you hate it here so much, why do you keep coming back?" FC

I really need to get those damn things done... FC

You assume that's just a skin.... FC

Not at the moment. There is a TF mode in the dll, but it isn't currently enabled. FC

Sigh...my observations: 1) Any line you draw between reality and arcade in a sim is arbitrary at best. Period. There are multi million dollar simulators out there for professional and military pilots. The cost of operation per HOUR is more than most people spend on a top of the line PC! Yet, with all this money and technology, what do you think most folks who really operate the aircraft say about the simulator? "It just fly quite the same." or "It just doesn't feel right." or "The aircraft behaves differently in this particular capability." So, seriously, if major aviation companies and governments can't get this right...what makes you think a company (any company) can get it right for far less budget on far less capable machinery. 2) Ever wonder why there are very few (in percentage) real world pilots who fly simulators for fun? Because a lot of times, flying is WORK! That's right, sometimes it's a job! Who wants to relive going to work on their off time? On the flip side, for when flying is fun...a simulator is a pale imitation at best...even on those multi million dollar machines other people pay for. Especially on a home PC, which is like driving using a soda straw for a window, and a calculator for steering. So, if a true hardcore flier (ie someone who does it for real is probably as hardcore as it gets) doesn't bitch about the 'realism' aspects...what makes you think a non fliers opinion about what a sim should have is any more relevant? And to be clear, I'm not putting down folks who don't or can't fly for real, far from it. Y'alls enthusiasm for flying is what helps keep me motivated to sim and hang out. I consider myself lucky that I was in the right place at the right time to be able to fly for a living...and I try to convey the love I have for flying to my friends here everyday, even just a little. Because I remember when I didn't fly, and how much I wanted to. 3) Immersion is different for everyone and again, is arbitrary where that line is drawn. We've seen examples here ... Stiglr being an extreme case, but even milder cases such as (and I'm not calling you out guys) the person who recently was Mab G. going on about having a LABS counter, or DH going on about the lack of robust multiplayer. It isn't 'wrong' or 'right' about what's in a sim that matters. What really matters is if you can enjoy it or not personally. There are folks who love F4, or LOMAC, or the TW series. To each his own...what your opinion is about each of them is exactly that...your opinion, and means precisely zero to anyone else. 4) Stiglr has simply forgotten the 2 reasons simulators are made. First, and foremost, to make money for the company. Second, to enjoy them. I've always noticed that folks with this sort of obsessive behavior on anything usually don't have anything else to fulfill their lives...and feel inadequate with every little slight in their narrow viewpoint. 5) In my opinion, the TW series strikes the balance...the feeling of flight without the tedium of flight. One person's opinion...but hey, what do I know. FC (pilot for 18+ years, flier for 20+ years, simmer for 25+ years)

Dave...I love you man! FC

Having flown more formation than I care to remember, let me give you my thoughts. 1) Close formation is fairly useless in modern air combat...you MIGHT be able to try to simulate a single target paint by flying REALLY close together, but you negate damn near any advantage of having a wingman which is... 2) Mutual support. A rule of formation is that the closer to lead you are, the more of your attention is focused on him and maintaining position, vs watching his six, your six, checking your stuff, and bogie search. 3) The reason that close formation tends to look better the closer you are is because of trend/deviation information. The closer you are to your lead, the sooner you see deviations forming, therefore the smaller correction you have to make to stay in position. Airshow formations require an damn near intrinsic trust in lead, because if something happens and he heads toward the ground, the wingies may not notice in time. A prime example was the last year the T-Birds operated the T-38A. During the back half of a loop in line abreast close formation, lead's stab jammed, giving him insufficent authority to pull out of the loop. He hit the ground, and all 3 of his wingman hit the ground right beside him. Close formations (the USAF calls fingertip, the USN calls parade) are usually to get the formation to the home field in an quick manner, help keep the formation close when driving through the weather, and finally (most importantly), to look good coming into the overhead. Personally, my formations in the TW series are Fingertip, Echelon, Diamond ... after that, it's line abrest, starting at a mile between aircraft. If I'm on a CAP mission, with 16 aircraft, I've got a wall going that spans almost 20 miles, with radars pinging. My stealth tactics are different though... Most times, the stock formations you see in the TW series are basically route spacing...which is sort of a 'relaxing cruise' type setup. The idea is that you keep in a general, safe location off of lead, but allows enough leeway to take care of your admin stuff within your aircraft. Which means you're going to bobble. FC

SF2 has the ability to 'detach' certain parts of the LOD...so now you can have tanks that are part of the aircraft LOD and have skins to match. You can do this in SF1/WOx/etc...however, the tanks or any other part won't detach. This may work for certain aircraft that couldn't jettision tanks (the F-106?) but obviously, doesn't work for most aircraft. I had a crazy idea on how to implement this ability in SF1...but I never tried it...I had no idea if it could have worked or not.. FC

No worries man....I hadn't had a chance to look at the textures so I didn't know you had already outlined them. Nice detail work! FC

Well, detached weapon lighting (ie seperate LOD files) I'd imagine can only have lighting in the same way slimers work on aircraft...a part of the LOD is set to be 'illuminated' in MAX and a TGA with the color is mapped to it. However, actual 'in sim engine using the ini' lights aren't possible for detached weapons. Now, in the case of the buddy pod, which is part of the aircraft LOD, you can certainly assign lights to it. In fact, with the new MovingLight parameter, you can even assign it to moving parts (the basket). The problem is, I don't know if the light would still show up if that part of the LOD isn't available (say if you don't load the buddy pod, will the 'basket light' still show up)? EricJ, I know where most of the formation lights are generally at on the model (including the wingtips). What I need from you is drawing the locations on your skin...actually, just paint the unilluminated slimers on the skin like they look when they are not lit up. Once that's done, I go back into MAX and actually 'cut' the slimers out of the mesh and reset them to be illuminated with a TGA file map. That way they match perfectly with the skin and you don't have to keep 'guessing' where to paint them. FC

Older paint scheme...but new feature: "Hey, I need some gas!" "I got something here for ya...." "Let me just whip this out..." FC

Yes, it can be done that way Gunrunner. Just build an ini file for the 'patch' and set it to show at the same distance as the aircraft you are patching. FC

F-111A and FB-111 updated to Versions 2.2 and 2.1 respectively. That's the problem with geographically separated team members...hard to make sure everyone is on the same page. Anyway, the models keep only getting better... FC

This thread serves as an interesting insight into the process of freeware model development by a team with different disciplines. So in that light, I'll be regularly updating it as I continue to work on the SupaBug. There will be a few things left as a surprise (can't give away everything...) but hopefully this will serve as an educational experience for most of our members. Current update: AGM rails are too big...resizing is necessary, which requires altering the weapon stations. In addition, the ARM and SAHM missiles won't mount with just rails...they need their own separate pylons. Minor work there. Also, just found out spoilers are 'cut' the wrong way...totally missread the diagram they were based on! So they'll have to be recut out of the mesh. Finally, the more I look at the flaps, the more I notice they seem to not only rotate, but 'translate' when extended. So they're going to probably be hard coded on the animation. So, lots of progress, but lots of revision needed. FC

Heh, when I first saw this thread, I thought yall were talking about me! A Korean who lives in Texas... Back to your regularly scheduled program.... FC

Hey folks, We all are glad that you're enjoying the updated F-111A. The readme mentions it, but I want to reemphasize it here. If you have old versions of the F-111, the weapondata.ini entries included in the update are meant to overwrite the entries you already have. If you have duplicates within your weapondata.ini, it could cause unexpected problems. Please scour your weapondata.ini first before you add in the F-111 entries. And a personal note. The modders like contributing to the community, we don't want undying adulation for just anything we put out there (that would be kind of creepy). Errors will creep in...you can only look at something so much before you start missing stuff. However, please be careful and give us a chance to respond and narrow down any issues you might be having before starting to post fixes. The restrictions that were put in place on the model may have been done for a specific reason...and any fixes posted may actually break something else if the problem was unique to your install. Please enjoy the updated F-111A...think of it as a taste of what you'll see for the others coming down the line and in the DS mod... FC

Ultramax, I assume you added the weapons listed in the readme for the F-111A. My question...did you check that you didn't already have those entries in your weapondata.ini? There is a specific warning in the readme to not have duplicates when installing the F-111A weapons. I suspect that is what is happening here...check that you don't have duplicates. In fact, the best idea would be to delete the last entries for the weapondata.ini that you had put in, resend it through the weapons editor, then try again. If it works, then scour the weapondata.ini to see if the F-111 entries exist and substitute the new ones for the old ones, resend through the weapons editor, and you should be good to go! FC