FastCargo

Thanks EricJ! Honestly, I'm not as interested in the Super Hornet as EricJ is. However, he has done great work on the F-5F skins, so I'm going to make sure he gets a good product from me. Which means doing the research and getting it right to the best of my limited abilities. Yes, there is another FA-18F out there. However, nothing says there can't be more than one with the corrections the current model needs plus it's stablemates. That's the way it works...Klavs81 has me do some work on the F-35, and in return, he's getting some awesome stuff done for me...you will see it soon. Eric, I hope to have all 3 models to you by Monday night to start skinning. The F and G are basically done, just awaiting to finish the E model...then I'll map all 3 at once. FC

Who said anything about a single seater... FC

Nope, the Yak-41 cheats. It uses all 3 engines in all modes. Which means the aircraft has a total thrust of 200000 kN (45000 lbs) in military power and almost 250000 kN (56200 lbs) thrust in AB...in all modes of flight. Which means in conventional horizontal flight, the aircraft has almost 20000 lbs of excess thrust. That might work for Ace Combat...not for me. FC

That was one thing I had to concede to reality in VTOL mode, AB use or not. In the real thing, AB is deactivated when in VTOL mode. However, there are issues in the Thirdwire sim if you try to do this. In the real thing, the lift fan produces slightly less thrust than a mil power F135 engine. However, if you try to put this in game (give the lift fan roughly the same thrust as the F135 engine in mil) the sim still maps the thrust curve over the entire range of throttle motion. Which means as you continue to advance the throttle, the engine develops more power than the lift fan, and the aircraft eventually will nose over and crash as you approach full power. Another way to explain...if full AB is 100 percent power at 100 percent throttle for the engine, and the lift fan is 80 percent power...the sim will not give you that power at 80 percent throttle...it will give you that power only at 100 percent throttle. You can see what happens. I stepped around this by making a 'four post' thrust setup where the total lift power is roughly 42000 lbs total, distributed evenly mainly between the lift fan and the engine. All four posts are vectored thrust at the same rate to keep the transition easier to horizontal flight. In addition, there is a fifth engine that is horizontal only. Now, what happens is that I tweaked the thrust cuvres so that as the altitude increases, the lift fan puts out less thrust in proportion to the thrust vectoring engine. But that is compensated by the dedicated horizontal engine which slowly kicks in as the lift fan fades out. The main reason is that the total thrust of the F135 is significantly less than 42000 lbs...and this way during conventional horizontal flight, the F-35 doesn't become a 'uber thrust' fighter. It does mean that you can't VTOL successfully much above 5000 feet...but then again, you shouldn't need to. So, the upshot? You'll get AB plume in VTOL mode, but conventional manuvering should be unaffected. Small price to pay for a somewhat stable VTOL aircraft. From what I was reading, 'bring back' capability of the B model won't be much more than the gun pod, some fuel above reserve, and a couple of 1000 lb bombs...I figured this was a fairly reasonable compromise. Now, if someone has a better way to make it so that as the throttle gets above a certain setting, the thrust curve flattens out for a particular engine, then we can make a more realistic 'liftfan' type setup. FC

Actually, I think JAT had rigged a fuel dump using the arresting hook key...I didn't try to see if it works. Dude, that video was AWESOME...and your VTOL skills are much better than mine...takeoffs work pretty nicely, but landings are trickier for me. Man, this thing is going to be sweet once a FM guru tweaks it a bit, though I have some ideas. Y'all need to REALLY watch this video, it's a great indicator of the B model's abilities. FC

Did the F-117 have a gun? Not all bomb droppers do. Issue update: Issues addressed: Speedbrakes - Fixed Ground handling - Fixed All data.inis updated with real world numbers for loads, empty weights, fuel capacities and ranges...B model will VTOL with only a light load as in reality. A model gun door animation auto open - Fixed (Thanks JAT!) Issues remaining: FM still needs fine tuning for all models. In addition, for some reason, the AI can't land the A and B models. Very close to releasable other than skins for the B and C models, fuel tanks, and gun pods. Klavs81, expect them back to you late this evening. FC

What wilco said. Everything casts shadows as long that that entry exists in an ini for that object. FC

Yes...and no. The Desert Storm mod is a 'all in one' modification. Nothing needs to be added other than the basic WOE install. It will integrate several things (aircraft, weapons, terrain, menus, etc). Which means that if you attempt to add a weapons pack without knowing what the hell you are doing, you will more than likely break the install. FC

What, my brethern at purple and orange too good to get photoed being deiced? Flew into KROC this morning...those pictures look VERY familiar... FC

"Newspapers quoted passengers as saying they feared the helmets could be laced with magic spells so as to knock the wearer unconscious and make them easier to rob.." Uh, what century is this? FC

The A model is the only one of the 3 variants of the F-35 that has an internal gun. The other 2, the gun was made external to save weight (especially important in the STOVL model - the F-35B). As far as external vs internal guns, that can be debated. Unlike the old F-4, where the external gun was a band aid kludge, the missionized gunpod is for the F-35 and so is integrated in the overall design of the aircraft. Eric, I sometimes act like I've got ADD (I don't), which means that when I focus on a job, or hobby, I'm like a laser in intensity, but it also means I can only focus for limited amounts of time...especially if the job is tedious. I have to take a break and mix it up every once in a while just so I don't totally burn out. I had to do a lot of research since I really didn't know the specific details on the SH. The F is currently sitting at the mapping stage. I had to do a lot of work to the MAX file to get it ready to be put in game. The G and E models are not started yet...the E will be the hardest. So, just taking a break from it is all...I plan to work on it this weekend. Speedbrake issue fixed all models...now to get the B model to have a passable VTOL capability. FC

Hope so too...I took a break from the SH for a bit to refresh the brain bytes. And yeah, the gunpod is pretty ugly I think. I only had a single cutaway diagram on it to base it's shape on...so it's probably not quite accurate. FC

C model stores testing, including missionized gunpod and proper external fuel tanks (both skinned, just need detail): B model animation testing: and flight: Working on fixing speedbrake animations for rudders on A and C model (works fine on B model). All models need ground handling fixing (and not by using asymetric wheel brakes). C model needs flight surface laws fine tuned. B model needs better FM and updated weight numbers (seems heavy). A model now has opening gun door animation, however, can't get it to automatically open. Models now have proper external fuel tanks, and B and C model have missionized gun pods, both need detailed textures. Models will have maximum commonality in animations and parts labeling to ease updates as necessary. FC

I'd imagine just do some research on the net to figure out which aircraft were supposed to carry them, then make the appropriate changes. FC

Actually, I suspect his options.ini file is incorrect. FC

"When I grow up, I want to be a big computer just like my dad..." For Christmas, got my wife a Netbook from Dell...it's the smaller laptop you see in the photo. It's been an interesting exercise as an example of 'how much do you really need'. Now, of course the following does not apply to those who use computers for anything involving massive amounts of data, floating point equations, or high speed graphics (ie games, video editing/rendering, etc). You take those out of the equation, just how much of a computer do you really need? And how does this apply to the development of the personal computer? I've advocated for the last couple of years that the average computing power curve that a person needs is beginning to flatten out, resulting in the entry cost for the average computer to get lower and lower. This Netbook is the prime example of the result. It used to be that to get a 'thin and light' notebook would cost you upward of $2k or more, and result in a computer that couldn't do everything you needed to. But several things have changed that equation including: 1) Raw computing power has continued to increase 2) Power requirements have lowered 3) HD space has gotten cheaper 4) Flash memory has gotten cheaper This combination has resulted in even a base computer with integrated graphics being able to do most things users need with reasonable speed (web surfing, office work, movie watching, picture viewing and light editing, etc). So a new market can be created...the 'cheap' thin and light computer. This computer was less than $500 USD, but fully loaded with things like multiple USB ports, integrated webcam, external monitor port, WiFi and Bluetooth, internal flash card reader, etc. Yet, is the size of a trade paperback novel, weighs less and has 4 hours of battery life at heavy usage (easily thrown into a purse, diaper bag or backpack). The funny thing, it takes very little to make this small computer very close to a 'real' desktops capabilities, including adding an external monitor, full sized keyboard, and external HD and DVD drives. We had migrated over to laptop computing sometime ago for personal use because we found desktops were fairly overkill for our needs (the exception being our server and HTPC)...we found the Netbook as a logical extension of this policy. Anyway, this isn't an advocation for such a computer (and as such, even the makers of said computer say these aren't meant as primary computers), but it shows just how far computing has come along, and that the evolution of computing continues to throw out new permutations. FC

43%...similiar to C5 in circumstance. Born overseas, but raised in Florida with small stretches in Buffalo, NY and Georgia. Then Colorado for college, Texas and California for active duty, with work in Tennessee and married to a southwestern Canadian. Little mix and match. FC

A timer. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html FC

Hey, hey! Glad to hear it! FC