FastCargo

Sounds good man! FC

In your opinion. FC

Most of the experienced modelers know what TurboSquid is. Good luck, hopefully someone will take you up on your offer. FC

Okay, I looked at it myself. The G's A/R door animation is definitely hardwired with the tailhook...and that animation is porked (the tailhook extends fine, but retracts sideways and stays that way). The pivot points on all the models' hooks are porked...nothing will get them to animate correctly. So assume none of the models have tailhooks. This is the entries all the models should share: On the 2 F models, you can comment out the entire Tailhook entry. On the G model, under the [AirRefuelingDoor] section, reduce the AnimationTime to something very small, like 0.001. The F models will now have properly activating A/R doors. You shouldn't see any wierdness with the tailhook, but you won't be able to use it either. For the G model, the A/R door will more or less simply 'appear'. What this does is reduce the cooresponding tailhook animation to a blink, which then is forced back into position by the [Tailhook] entry. So, except during the actual 0.001 second of animation, the tailhook will always appear to be retracted, properly. FC

Before you do that, realize that some folks selling 'models' may actually be selling 'less than legal' ones they reverse engineered from somewhere else. Also realize that someone may initially commit, then not be able to do the job, resulting in you being out of money with nothing to show for it but a model you can't use. FC

Hey, I know that guy! Flew together a few times before he retired... FC

Alrighty folks, everyone take it easy. morteza1374, everyone I think understands there is a communication issue. However, most of your posts have been either about wanting something, or about something that is incorrect and needs fixing. Very few of your posts have actually been about you creating or fixing something yourself. One of the great things about this series of sims is except for the actual building of 3d objects, EVERYTHING else can be done with freeware programs and application of knowledge and effort. You will get more respect if you make the effort to start fixing things yourself. If you cannot bring yourself to do this, why should anyone else be bothered to help you? FC -------------------------- مردمی بسیار خب، هر کس آن را آسان. morteza1374، هر کس من فکر می کنم درک یک مسئله ارتباط وجود دارد. با این حال، بسیاری از پست های خود را یا در مورد چیزی می خواهند، و یا در مورد چیزی است که نادرست است و نیاز به تعمیر شده است. تعداد بسیار کمی از پست های خود را که در واقع در مورد شما ایجاد و یا تثبیت چیزی به خودتان بوده است. یکی از چیزهایی که در مورد این سری از سیمز به جز برای ساختمان های واقعی از اشیاء 3D، هر چیز دیگری را می توان با برنامه های نرم افزار و استفاده از دانش و تلاش انجام می شود. شما احترام بیشتری اگر شما را به تلاش برای شروع همه چیز ثابت خود را دریافت کنید. اگر شما نمی توانید به را خود را برای انجام این کار، چرا باید هر کس دیگری ناراحت است به شما کمک کند؟ FC

PM me the MAX file and aircraft directory and I can take a look. Make sure the name of the mesh of the front nose wheel is correct. Also, is it just me or is your rear landing gear off the ground? FC

Well, if you want that, download Blender, learn Orbiter's format rules, then you can export your custom designs into Orbiter's format. FC

Okay, let's start with a process of elimination. Comment out all the hook reference entries. Make note of which animation they use. Make sure nothing else is using those animation slots. Check all 3 aircraft in game...see if the hooks all look correct, the A/R probes don't move, and the hook command is non-functional. Then create manual animation entries for the A/R probes. Use the entries on the Super Hornet as an example. Once those entries are built, check all 3 aircraft again. Use the manual animation key in game...see if it only affects the A/R door. Assuming this is good, try to find the node name for the hook mesh in the LOD (check the OUT file). Build an entry like this in each aircraft's data.ini: Note no animation is referenced at all in this entry. See if the hook command works and the hooks move correctly. If anything is abnormal in any one of these steps, we can chase down what is wrong and what can be done. FC

OpenRocket - Design your own rockets, then build and fly them for real. - http://openrocket.sourceforge.net/ Wing Commander Saga - Wing Commander using the FS2 engine - http://www.wcsaga.com/ BSG Diaspora - BSG using the FS2 engine (bring your skills) - http://diaspora.hard-light.net/ The Babylon Project - B5 using the FS2 engine - http://babylon.hard-light.net/ Privateer Gemini Gold - Origin's Privateer done with a 3d space combat engine - http://privateer.sou....net/news.shtml BattleZone 1.5 - Yep, Activision's BattleZone, made to work with modern resolutions and WinXP/Win7 - http://www.battlezone1.com/downloads/ FC

The double slash is a comment code only....everything after the double slash on that line is disregarded by the game engine. Using the hook command was an old SF1 trick to get around the lack of direct user control of animations. That's been fixed since the Oct 08 patch. So you could assign the A/R probe to a manual animation key. Also, depending where the pivot point is on the hook, you could actually assign it to the hook key. The game engine will animate it just fine as long as you specify the values it will rotate to. FC

Okay, that would explain why I hadn't heard of any multiplayer/single aircraft sims...most of those genres I'm not interested in (except for EECH...I think I remember that option now). FC

Maeran, I know some in the First Eagles crowd that would enjoy your work. And depending on the number of polys, it wouldn't be that hard to import. FC

Russ, I guess I'm confused. The last MAX file I posted had the wingfold working correctly with the weapons...did something change? FC

Zur, It certainly is possible. But, I think everyone is rocket-jumping to conclusions waaaay early. Just like everyone is creaming their shorts about DCS. In both, the situation is the same...potential. TW could potentially leave the PC market. DCS could potentially be the combat flight sim platform diehards have been looking for (FSX moddability and realism applied to a modern air combat flight sim). A lot of us have been around the block enough to have seen the wreckage of past efforts to know better. No matter if it's established developers (Janes, Spectrum Holobyte, Microsoft) or new developers that never got to market (Fighter Ops, Jet Thunder), no developer is immune to closing up due to all sorts of factors. We have a saying at my company: "Until it has a purple tail and is sitting on our ramp, don't assume we'll get that aircraft." When TW makes an announcement that they are ceasing PC development, then I'll believe it. When I start seeing a sizable amount of releases (not renders, videos, or screenshots) of products for DCS that are significantly different than what is already for sale, then I'll get excited. FC

You know, something that I think would be a hoot and a half would be the old '2 people in the same aircraft' multiplayer. As far as I can tell, I don't think that's been done since F-15 Strike Eagle III. I'd imagine there would be a whole host of issues attempting to program it. But damn, it was fun! Nobody has seen something like that on the horizon for anything? FC

How do you like Prepar3d? FC

Russ, by the way, you do not need to assign the hook to an animation slot. If the pivot point is at the correct location, the game engine will do it for you just fine. FC

And really folks, this isn't a zero sum game. One can have both on their hard drive. Along with the SF2 series, I have DCS World, BS2, and A-10C. Far as I can tell, my hard drive hasn't self destructed yet... FC

I hate 3DS Max sometimes... Besides the general bugginess while doing something, it decided to pork up a model I had been working on. Last night, I saved a model that I had been building with nothing wrong with it. I open it today to find it completely shredded. Mesh is distorted, normals wacked, cutouts gone... And there was no AutoBackup because I had been working on the MiG-29...so all the backups were for that. The only good thing was that I hadn't done a 'Collapse All' function, so I was able to go backward in the list and restore it back to a usable state. Couple of hours work...poof! POS program.... FC

Actually, that's not a bad idea. FPSes have done this sort of thing for years, licensing out their engines for other games. Unity offers their engine for free (which TW and other games have used for mobile devices). That could be something that could spark a flight sim renaissance...prime creators license their engines and rake in money that way. Smaller niche developers could make product for specific markets...which could cut down on costs if an engine doesn't need to be developed in house. Of course, I have NO idea if something that is standard in the FPS world would work in the flight sim world. FC

Yea buddy! FC

I personally don't think even TK knows for sure where he is going. Here are some of my personal observations: 1) The tech world is changing...constantly. Who would have thought just 5 years ago when the iPhone was introduced that Apple would become the dominant player in the mobile space (or computing in general)? Or that Palm, RIM, Nokia would all be on life support (or already dead)? 5 years...that's all it took to completely change the computing landscape. 2) Who also saw the PC having a resurgence in gaming relevance? In 2005/6, when the XBox 360 and PS3 were released, PC gaming was considered to be on a downhill slide. But 2 things around the same time contributed to the PC's resurgence - MMOs gained more traction, and digital distribution (ie Steam). And now with Free to Play titles like WOT and Minecraft raking in millions of dollars, PC gaming is as strong or stronger than ever. I could name other examples of how advancing tech has disrupted traditional business models within a short time frame. Here's my take away opinion: This all works against complex combat flight simulations. The reasons include: 1) Graphics - We all like our eye candy. 2) The office - Unlike something like an FPS, where your near modeling is a forearm and an gun, a complex flight sim requires an entire office, plus all the stuff has to work in the office correctly. 3) Physics - Fluid dynamics...enough said. 4) Avionics - Yours, your wingmans', your weapons, their weapons. 5) AI - Takes advantage of their strengths but has real world limitations. Uses the avionics and physics in proper context. In my opinion, modern air combat simulation (ie anything that uses the EM spectrum as a significant part of gameplay) is the most difficult programming that can be done for a commercial, publicly available product. It takes money, energy, and time...a lot of time the more detailed you get. Which works against the pressures of a modern, publishing timetable. I think that unless something radically changes to make such things as a modern air combat simulation a lot easier and faster to program, that we have reached the zenith of the 10/10ths detail flight sim. I think the only way you will see future products like the level of DCS in terms of fidelity and AFM, will be only if the developers are willing to take a loss. I personally think TK is experimenting with trying to keep his business agile and adapting to the changing market. I don't worry about length of time between releases for DLC. Unlike things like FPSes, where there are a thousand different alternatives...how many places allow you to fly a Mirage F-1 in a combat flight sim? Hopefully I'm wrong. Hopefully there are enough people interested in something like DCS (due to so many other developers abandoning the market) that ED and 3rd party developers can create a wide variety of offerings to satisfy everyone. FC

Hey, I'd like some too. Realistically, there probably isn't much right now. Based on what I've observed, I'd imagine TW is establishing a 'beachhead' in the mobile space. Once those revenue streams are established, only then I suspect you'll start seeing progress on the PC front. Again, no special information is available to me...I merely observe and make suppositions as to the direction things are going. Based on SFA and SFA:I, I suspect a SFA:V and SFA:E are coming. Though I don't know how much either could offer...SFA:V might give us the A-4(a curious omission from SFA), and SFA:E would give us the Harrier(again, another curious omission from SFA). There could be surprise visits from an A-7, A-10, and even the F-1 (they all have guns and at least self defense Sidewinders). FC