FastCargo

Ah...very nice...just like I flew down to Brazil... FastCargo

Mirrors? FastCargo

Actually, the ABL would be REALLY cool. But since we can't shoot down missiles...makes it sort of moot.

Not a 'new' model...just a F-111A with the appropriate bits added and deleted, painted, and new data.ini work. I'm still trying to get the basic addon shapes correct. Hopefully, once that's done, snapper21 can take em and use them. FastCargo

Satellites! Oh wait...we've already got that... FastCargo

That just makes no sense (I'm not doubting you USAFMTL). That is a VERY odd thing... I'll have some free time this weekend. I haven't patched yet. I'll do that and see what happens. FastCargo

The math is wrong. Lets start with the total - 30 dollars = 3 x 10 dollars per. Now, the new total - 25 dollars = 3 x 8.3333333... dollars per. (Difference of 1.666666 per person) Add 1 dollar for each person - 28 dollars = 3 x 9.3333333... dollars per. (Difference of .6666666 per person) Add 2 dollars (which is .666666666 x 3) for bellboy - 30 dollars = Original total. FastCargo

Well, not specifically just the fact you're carrying an additional crewmember. It's all the additional framing and weight needed to carry that additional crewmember. Also, you have to reshape the profile of the aircraft, which may result in loss of performance compared to its more optimized sibling. I'll back up and say that a clean F-15E MAY not dogfight as well as a clean F-15C due to those factors. Also, I thought (I won't swear to this) that there was additional strengthing of the airframe for the E model. Most of the time, the main thing that two-seaters compared to their single seat brethern lose is fuel capacity. I will tell ya though, F-15Es with the -229s were the only guys who could keep up with us down low without having to dip into burners (after the F-111s were retired). FastCargo

Did you search the whole drive for the file? FastCargo

Oldie but goodie: There appears to be some confusion over new pilot roles and their titles. This notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P-1, P-2 (or pilot flying and pilot not flying) and Co-pilot will now cease to have any meaning in operations manuals. These terms will be replaced by `Handling Pilot,' `Non-handling Pilot,' `Handling Landing Pilot,' `Non-handling Landing Pilot,' `Handling Non-landing Pilot,' and `Non-handling Non-landing Pilot. Role Description: The Landing Pilot is the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Handling Pilot for taxi and takeoff until he hands the handling to the current Non-Handling Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Pilot and the Landing Pilot (which makes him the Handling Landing Pilot) at eighty knots. The role reversal is complete when the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot assumes the role of the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot. The Non-Landing (and Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is Handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, leaving the previously Handling Landing Pilot to assume the correct role of Non-Handling Landing Pilot, and the instrument approach may begin. We must stress that the Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when, if the landing is to be made, the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, where the roles are reversed, and the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot becomes the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and the previously Non-Handling Landing Pilot becomes the Handling Landing Pilot -- unless the original Non-Handling Landing Pilot calls "go-around," in which case the original Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues Handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues Non-Handling until the next approach and the call of "land" or "go-around," as appropriate, is made. We all hope this clarifies what may have been difficult to understand. Thank you for your attention. Funny thing, but if you use terms 'Pilot Flying' and 'Pilot Not Flying' and call this a 'monitored approach'...it makes perfect sense! FastCargo

Excellent...shadows are back for me then! FastCargo

Did you patch OVER your modded WOI install? If you did...bad things man...bad things... The BEST thing you can do is make a fresh, unmodded install of WOI, then patch, then install your MODs. Otherwise, it's almost a certainty that your mods will get screwed up in some way. FastCargo

First, go to this link to learn what a CAT extractor is: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=25845 Then follow the link inside that article to download it. Then besides using the readme included with the CAT extractor, read this link to learn how to use it: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...l=CAT+extractor You have to run it in Windows 98 Compatability Mode to get it to work, check this link for more info: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/h...february18.mspx FastCargo

Sir, the SITREP is this: Total SNAFU, we're about to get BOHICAed to the point of FUBAR, thats why IHTFP. Damn it, and I was so close to being FIGMO... FastCargo

Both could ruin your day...permanently! FastCargo

Try this link: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...mp;#entry141845 FastCargo

Careful Nicky...your Niven roots are showing again... :) FastCargo

Topic is there...just checked myself. FastCargo

Ordway, I'd imagine most of that audience you are concerned about are looking outside. This isn't a hard IFR type sim anyway. I'd keep it like you have it. FastCargo

Up until a few years ago, they had the cargo version of the B-36 (the XC-99) sitting rusting at Kelly AFB. They've only recently started moving parts of it up to WPAFB for restoration and eventual display. That thing was even bigger than the B-36. Hey Hawker, if you decide to go to Castle AFB, make sure you get pictures of the A-9. Only 2 built. FastCargo

I hate to say this, but I recommend the same. What I have noticed, is that sometimes, even with a perfect INI entry, that the weps editor will inadvertenly tweak some values. I built a weapons rack that it did that to for some reason. I had to reinput the values within the editor itself to make sure the values were compiled right in the the weapondata.dat file. FastCargo

Definitely given back to the taxpayers.... Bummer. FastCargo

Well I make no claims as to accuracy of loadouts and which carriers had which squadrons and the Red Air OOB. Having said that, I tried to be close...make it fun while feeling realistic. FastCargo

Don't burn too much energy on this one... Weapons as of right now do not target other weapons. As far as I know (and I've tried). So if you put AGM-86s in the air...nothing will currently shoot them down... FastCargo

Okay, let's settle this a bit. Usually, T/W differences and turn performance differences as models go along are really not THAT significant. I could see F-15E models for instance, even clean, not perform as well as C models...mainly because you're carrying another person. Duh! Most of this kind of crap stems because someone is looking at numbers on a graph. What you fail to take into account is the increased capability of the aircraft in question. Usually better avionics, better sensor integration, expanded envelope. Weapons system upgrades and model changes are based on overall capability. Just because an aircraft is not as great at dogfighting as it's previous model doesn't mean its less capable. FastCargo