FastCargo

I wouldn't say Exp3 is dead yet. And remember, most of the coding initially went into SFA. I'd say SFA:I probably had very little additional coding...the hard part was already done. Here's the thing I'm thinking. First, SFA obviously made money. Second, advertising. Think about it...SFA has had over 100,000 installs. At least 100,000 people have looked at the app and now know the name Strike Fighters, and the company, ThirdWire. Does anybody think Eagle Dynamics would kill for those kind of numbers? As an example of market size...Eagle Dynamics has 1400 'Likes' on Facebook. ThirdWire has 19000...nearly 14 times as many. You can argue the audiences may be different or the margins aren't as high for each company. But each company still has to make a profit to hang around. The numbers on Facebook may not reflect the actual numbers of folks who buy from these companies. But I'll put money that the relative size of the audiences are pretty accurate. I honestly find the whole process fascinating from an academic point of view. I think times are going to be interesting. I have my own theories as to the current and future state of flight sims. FC PS And I have to chuckle at folks who find the whole advancement of tech disconcerting. Considering you're posting on an internet forum, to chat with people from around the planet. Or that a cell phone should just be used for calling...when 25 years ago, only rich folks could have a cell phone, that only worked in limited locations, and was the size of a literal brick.

You are not the target audience. FC

There are civilian Hunters in existence...could have been one of those. FC

Well, I was lucky and bought the student edition for a lot cheaper. But if I was using this program to make a living and had to pay for the full priced commercial edition, I'd be PISSED using a program that acted like this. FC

Two things: 1) Check the mesh Properties, specifically the User Defined tab, and make sure of the following flags: 2) In the Materials Editor, make sure not to use 2-sided...I've noticed that this causes more problems then it solves (this method worked for the MiG-29K). FC

I checked the pivot point in MAX for the fuselage after the XForm/Center To Object/Transform shuffle and it isn't centered. So the solution overall is to do the unlink/XForm/Center To Object/Transform/relink shuffle on all related meshes. Animate the particular meshes you need to. For the pivot points on the pylons themselves, you will need to rotate them to the proper alignment you need for the weapon if it is other than 0,0,0 (this is important for wingtip rails). CGPosition should either be commented out or be at 0,0,0. If you can't do that for ground handling, then offset the position numbers in the data.ini for the weapons the appropriate amount. FC

Okay, solved the issue...but you're not going to believe how. First, like I talked about eariler, I went through the hierarchy and did the unlink, ResetXForm, pivot point Center to Object and Transform for all meshes related to the weapon pylon. I reanimated the wing fold, and simplified the pylons (they were asymetrical on the wings...I assume they were for testing). Didn't have to rotate the pivot points since the missiles are mounted with 0,0,0 rotation. Result...missiles hanging forward and below the pylons. Proper alignment, proper distance from the centerline, and symmetrical (both outer missiles were incorrect in the same direction). Also, they followed the wing fold properly. So...everything worked, but the missile were in an odd place...and it was specific. Went back to the MAX file, redid the pylon pivot points (disregarding the positions of the pivot points...just Center to Object instead)...same result. No change at all. Then on a hunch...I commented out one line in the data.ini...and immediately everything was fixed. Mounted properly, rotated properly with the wingfold, both outer stations. Here's the line: CGPosition=0.00,-1.20,0.15 WTF.... FC

morteza1374, the reason I don't answer is that I tend to be select in who I respond to and what I respond about. I normally respond to folks via PM who are my friends, fellow modders, moderators, and admins, and people who have been part of the CA community for a long time. I will also respond to folks if they are having very specific issues with the website that shouldn't be brought up in public. Most other things, I prefer the request or issue be posted publicly in the appropriate part of the forum...that way all can benefit. If I don't respond there, it usually means I don't have the time, or I'm not interested, or both. If I don't respond in public, then it's a virtual certainty I am not going to respond via private message on the same topic. Now, back to the topic at hand....I believe the squadron has to remain the same when a base gets an upgrade. I'm not sure though. FC

We do not condone such things on this website. FC

Couple of things: First, I verified that this works from the Oct 08 patch for SF1 all the way to the Ju1 2012 patch for SF2. Second, my theory is that the RotatingPylon parameter was meant for aircraft with vertical pylons on swing wings. The critical thing is that it ignores ALL rotational inputs in the data.ini for that weapon station. It assumes the weapon is hanging straight down, parallel to the centerline of the aircraft. Lack of ResetXForm has caused all sorts of issues, which are multiplied in a hierarchy. Because the game looks at the pivot points and their relationship to each other, that's why missiles don't seem to mount where they should. It doesn't help that 3ds MAX is notoriously buggy sometimes with positional and rotational data. Half the time I input rotational data in one axis, only for it to apply the rotation in a different axis... FC

Okay, I think I have figured this out. I actually fixed this for the Super Hornet (which means the legacy Hornets can be fixed too). First, unlink and Reset XForm EVERYTHING in the hierarchy from the Fuselage to the weapon pylon. For example, the Super Hornet: I had to unlink all those meshes, do a ResetXForm, then for the pivot points, I did a Center to Object and Transform. I then moved the pivot point and reanimated the appropriate part (in this case, the LeftOuterWing). Then, for the specific mesh mentioned in the Weapon Station (in this case, LeftWingtipRailMount), put the pivot point for that mesh in the exact location and alignment as you wrote in the data.ini (ie if the weapon is 1.0,1.0,1.0 position with 0.0,-3.0,-90.0 rotation, do the exact same thing with the pivot point of the pylon). Then relink, verify everything looks correct in MAX, and export. FC

I'd assume it has something to do with the squadron. FC

JDAMs work fine. Check the thread IanH referenced. Did my own testing with verified GPS guided JDAMs. 4 out of 6 targets destroyed (including one by an AI wingman). I wasn't even trying very hard to duplicate parameters. IanH did much more extensive testing and found even better results. The 'basket' is tighter and steeper now. FC

Yep, the Su-33 appears to work correctly...though the actual positions are all jacked.... Hmph. FC

Damn it...too slow. Okay, I see it...yep, that looks correct. Well, hell...now I'm stumped. Ed, can you send me the latest data.ini and I'll see if there is something I'm missing. Actually, can you send the OUT file too? FC

Maybe. The SF1 version of the Super Hornet has roughly the same issue Russ is seeing on the MiG-29K. Yet, the F-111E has no such problem. Ed, what I need is an aircraft that the wing rotates in the Y axis, and the weapon stays in the same relative location...AND the weapon rotates properly. For instance, it took a while for us to notice the missile was not rotating. Because it was staying in the same proper location (on the wingtip). Russ, try the entry like before (with the user controlled animation), but comment out the RotatingPylon=TRUE line. See if the missile at least mounts properly. FC

I keep trying to tell folks...USER CONTROLLED (manual) animations not tied to things like flight controls, hooks, wing sweep, landing gear, etc, have, as far as I know, NEVER worked with weapons hanging off the mesh in question. The code for pure user control wasn't even in the original game, and was added after people wanted to control the canopy opening manually. FC PS Hmmmm...now I'm not so sure...I tried with the F-111 in the Oct 08 version of WOE, and the weapons mounted fine. However, I could swear we had problems with the Super Hornet for SF1 and so didn't end up using it...

Russ, remove the wingfold animation entry in the data.ini, put the weapons where you think they should go. If that fixes the problem visually, then having the animation for the wing fold being user controlled is the problem...and there is no solution. FC

Russ, couple of things: First, if you use an Animation slot as pure animation (ie not tied to a control surface or landing gear/hook), any weapons attached to that node will not rotate properly. We encountered this with the Hornet and Super Hornets. Second...silly question, but did you put the SystemNames for the Airbrake and Hook in the appropriate component section? FC

Close. Radar is like a flashlight...but they can only see you if your 'beam' hits them. Unlike a real flashlight which can be seen without the person seeing it being lit up by the person holding the flashlight, a radar beam will only be seen if it strikes a sensor directly. There are some exceptions having to do with sidelobe bleeding of radar beams, but that is the general principle. Noise jamming is close to the smokescreen effect you describe. Can highlight your general position to others. Closer in, can mask your exact position. Closer yet, and they can see you again. Missiles that have Home On Jam capability can actually use this jamming as a beacon to home in on. Deception jamming is significantly different. Basically, you can analyze the radar (or other signals) and transmit a return signal that is different from your actual position, velocity, or both. A recent test in Austin showed the capability of using deception jamming GPS signals to lure a drone in a different direction than intended. There is suspicion that Iran may have done something similar when they captured that stealth drone. FC

Guys, though I agree with the sentiment...George Carlin didn't write it: http://web.archive.org/web/20040930232902/http://www.georgecarlin.com/home/dontblame.html Here is the snopes.com entry, including the original text and proper attribution (Dr. Bob Moorehead): http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/paradox.asp Though I probably burst some bubbles, the words themselves still resonate. Have a Happy New Year! FC

Dude...don't EVER say such things... Happy New Year folks! FC

Sigh... The Arrow's story has almost been raised to mythical proportions. As such, some details are overlooked that shouldn't be: Here are a few books in dead tree editions I have on the Arrow: http://www.amazon.com/Avro-Arrow-Story-Evolution-Extinction/dp/1550460471/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356982871&sr=1-2&keywords=cf-105+arrow http://www.amazon.com/Storms-Controversy-Secret-Arrow-Revealed/dp/1554886988/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356982964&sr=1-14&keywords=cf-105+arrow There are several others that Amazon doesn't list, including one put out by the 'Arrowheads' themselves. When one looks at the Arrow program as a whole, with an unbiased view, you come to the following overall conclusion: The Arrow died due to bad timing...pure and simple. The various nails in the coffin included: 1) Pushing the envelope in technology. As many other technological programs show, if you are at the bleeding edge, your R&D was going to always be high. The Arrow was a tech pusher...though not in speed as some suggest. The F-4 (which first flew only 2 months after the CF-105) and the F-106A (single engine!) both could match the CF-105 in raw speed. This may have been different for the Mark II, but it wasn't going to be by much. The fly by wire system on the other hand, was innovative (though not the first of its kind either). However, the thing that was eating up funds was not the aerodynamics, or even the engines, but the weapon system. The design was initially designed around the Falcon/Hughes missile/radar combo. But the RCAF wanted the in development MX-1179/Sparrow II combo. Unlike the former combo, which was almost at the production stage, the latter was running into development problems, not having even been tested yet, to the point where the USN abandoned the development in 1956, and Canadair was brought in to take over development. ALL of this cost money, most of which hadn't been budgeted for. 2) Constant design changes and requirements. In addition to the above mentioned changes to the weapons/radar combo, the engine changes had an impact on the development of the Arrow. The original specification called for the use of the Rolls Royce RB106, with a backup of the Wright J67. Unfortunately, BOTH engines were canceled by their respective countries (UK and US)...leaving the Arrow without an engine. Therefore, the J75 was used for the initial aerodynamic models (Mk I), with an Orenda developed TR13 (Iroquois). Of course, all the changes PLUS the cost for the engines development were rolled into the overall R&D cost of the Arrow. 3) Belt tightening. The Canadian, US, and UK governments were all in a period of budget axing in the late 1950s. The UK's 1957 Defence White Paper, the recession in the US in 1958-59, the Diefenbaker's targeting of large government projects (the Arrow, a giant postal "million dollar monster" sorting machine) all added to the atmosphere of shedding projects which were considered to not be cost effective. Regardless of what one thinks, defense budgets are still subject to justifiable cost effectiveness. It isn't a question of good, but if it will be 'good enough'...or enough of an increase in capability to offset the additional cost of development. 4) Missiles. Everyone knows the famous story of the rollout of the Arrow being upstaged by the launch of Sputnik the same day. However, the launch of Sputnik had farther reaching implications. The Russians proved they could launch a satellite in orbit...who knew if a nuclear weapon would be next. Manned interceptors couldn't do dick against a warhead coming in at Mach 25...or so the thinking started to shift. Were manned nuclear bombers a thing of the past? And by extension, manned interceptors? 5) Lack of export partners. Canada had some unique requirements for their interceptor that other countries' aircraft couldn't fulfill to the extent the RCAF wanted (resulting in development of the Arrow in the first place). One was the large, sparsely populated area needing coverage...dictating 2 engines (for redundancy), large size (for fuel capacity), and high speed (for area coverage). However, to get this capability, some areas were minimized. First, I have not found diagrams or documentation anywhere confirming some sort of external hardpoint system. The only thing I have seen was one notational drawing of carrying an external fuel tank on the centerline. There were notes that four 1000 pound bombs could be carried in the weapons bay (part of a 'clip on bay' system), but that part had not been fleshed out by the time the Arrow was canceled. Which made it an aircraft uniquely suited to Canada's requirements...and very few other countries' for the expense involved. All one has to do is think about those requirements and realize Canada's were simply unique, requiring an aircraft that was essentially a unitasker...it could do one thing really well. But one only has to look at the F-4 to see an aircraft that could do a similar mission (although with less range), but with significant flexibility with all the external hardpoints available. It gave 9/10s of what the CF-105 could do, but had additional capability built in. Don't let anyone fool you...external hardpoints are not simply 'tacked on'. If they are supposed to carry a decent amount of ordinance, they have to be designed or redesigned for. In the end, due to a combination of all these factors, the CF-105 was canceled. Lest you think this was unique to Canada at the time, one only has to look at the cancellation of the F-103, F-108, B-70 programs. All fell victim to various factors. In hindsight, the reasons for cancellation in the short term were correct. There never ended up being the hordes of Soviet bombers on the horizon. Missiles did end up being the primary delivery system for nuclear weapons, with bombers as a secondary threat. One can argue the need for the long range, high speed interceptor has faded from history, especially as missiles, (including surface to air) continue to improve in capability. The longer range implications of the cancellation are more unclear. Certainly one can argue the 'brain drain' to the US was significant, especially as how many engineers ended up working for NASA. How much of an impact on the US space program is debatable (just ask Gepard about the German contributions...). Intangibles include things like development of home grown national defense and technology capability, national pride, economic impacts. Realistically, how much could Canada afford of home grown technologies is also debatable. For instance, many of the more advanced drugs Canada buys for its National Health Care System were developed by US companies, with the US footing most of the R&D, allowing Canada to buy at sale prices. Also, legitimate debates have popped up about host Olympics funding verses health care funding in Canada. If your finances are that tight... So, put away the tinfoil...there are plenty of legitimate (at the time) reasons the Arrow died. You don't need to make up vast conspiracies when the boring truth is much simpler. One final note. Those with love for older aircraft often state that "If they only did this, this and this that it could still fly...". Does anyone notice why companies fight so hard to keep production lines open? Or why the most evolved version of the F-5 was basically a new aircraft (F-20) and had to be done by Northrop itself? Or why reverse engineering the F-5E by the Iranians results in an aircraft that really isn't any different other than the twin tails and slightly revised intakes? Or look at the Super Hornet, which essentially is a new aircraft. It wasn't cheap to develop, and still had to be flight tested and certified with the various weapon stores ('toed out' pylons anyone)? And that was from an aircraft that was still in production...not a 50 year old design. One word: Expense. It is expensive to develop a military combat aircraft. If an Arrow were to be built today, all new jigs and production lines would have to be designed and built. The design would have to be engineered to have external hardpoints, stealth features, increased visibility requirements (note any new fighters NOT having a 'bubble' canopy), and avionic/ergonomic improvements. Who here thinks the resulting design would be an Arrow in name only? FC

I just tested using Google and am not seeing a redirect. Also, just typed directly into the url window with the correct result. FC

If you buy A-10C from Steam, download the A-10C module from ED directly and use the Steam key to activate it. The Steam version of A-10C is not directly compatible with DCS World. FC