FastCargo

Unfortunately, I'm not interested enough in that era of flight to mod it or play it past FEG, especially since things like OFF exist. I kind of like the idea of a final patch and the end of the SF series. Or at least any further releases/DLC not altering the engine. That way I could sandbox forever. I used to create aircraft way back in the FS4 days, but stopped because MSFS was advancing faster than I could keep up. Even with SF2 at its current state, there is far more I want to do then I will ever get to do in my lifetime. The hardest part would be keeping it running on newer OSes. FC

The line between a game and a sim will always be blurry and dependent on the individual. As you move from one to the other, all you get is an increasing probability that more people agree which it is. If the SF series comes to an end, that's fine...it has had a pretty good run. But, from what I've seen of other sims, I have not seen anything that balances playability verses realism, combined with modability and variety of third party content of the SF series. Everyone talks a big game of how much other sims can do...yet, how large is the third party content of any air combat sims? There are some beautiful aircraft and cockpits out there for other sims...but how many? Any more than 10 for a particular sim? I'm seriously asking...because from what I see, there isn't a whole lot. Also, with increasing complexity and fidelity of a game engine, it also usually means increasing fidelity of the third party content to keep up. Which increases the time and effort involved. Just how many epic looking mods of various games have never made it out because the technology outstripped the modder's energy. Hell, we've seen it here with the Mig Alley mod, and that was what folks here admit is a slow advancing engine, and that was for a conflict that doesn't have a EM warfare enviroment. In some ways, if the SF series comes to an end, I'll be happier about it. It means that any future mods I make will always be compatible with the latest patch.

He's one of those men who I thought was too cranky to die... An automotive legend passes into history. Thanks Carroll...RIP. FC

Use a tga for the skin like a decal. FC

Maybe not one decal (if it's a wraparound scheme you need). Use multiple decals that overlap (ie some aligned to TOP/BOTTOM, LEFT/RIGHT)...I did that for the B-70 glareshield variants. Obviously, you have to adhere to decal amount limitations... FC

Do you have a little more detail as to what this file entails? FC

Moved to correct subforum. Have you tried contacting 777 Studios directly and verifying your information? FC

Man, sorry to see that. RIP. FC

Sweet! FC

Had a good bud of mine who used to fly them. Said they were a hoot...in some ways just as fun as the T-38s, A-7s, A-10s and F-16s he flew later. FC

I remember doing a mod of the WOE campaign that added this capability. That was a tough campaign.... FC

You can do that already if you self lase. And nothing prevents you from dropping dumb iron on various non-priority targets. FC

See, that's a map the B-70 could actually be comfortable in... FC

Unfortunately, it has not been tested with the April 2012 patch. Some major rework is probably needed. FC

As far as your other question, each "SF2x.exe" file will look for mods within it's own mod directory. So SF2:V will look in the SF2:V mod directory, SF2:I will look in the SF2:I directory, etc. If you want to see your mods, run the .exe file associated with that mod directory. Or, put all your mods in the same mod directory and run that associated exe file. FC

It's real simple. When you ran the install program for each individual sim, when it asked you what directory to install it in, did you install it in the same directory the other sims were installed in? If yes, you merged the installs. If no, you have a separate install. Look in the directory of your various installs (not the mod folders). If you see multiple "SF2x.exe" files, you have a merged install directory. If not, you don't. FC

I think monorail systems are really one of those things that needs to have a perfect storm of conditions to be effective...and even then, you may have to make compromises to accommodate realities. Vancouver, BC installed an elevated train system for the Olympics. It was very expensive because it was so expansive. Elevated in some places, buried in others. But in the end, it works pretty well. Far reaching, cheap, and frequent service. It may not ever make it's money back in absolute coin, but there are side benefits of it being in place...image, less traffic congestion, etc. FC

Topics merged. FC

No. 2 different flight sims. FC

Wrench, can you not get the dome to rotate? Have you tried making it an engine? FC

The student version works just fine with the exporter...assuming you have the proper version of 3ds MAX (currently 3ds MAX 2009 32-bit). FC

I actually created a floating aircraft carrier while testing the idea of a 'Crimson Skies' mod. The problem (it sounds like WBS ran into the same issue) is that carriers won't work above a certain altitude...and that altitude isn't very high. HOWEVER, if you want to make an ID4 mothership that is attackable, and has weapons to fight back, AND can be at any altitude, that part is easy. http://combatace.com/topic/26637-as-of-right-now/page__view__findpost__p__143480 FC

JM, That and the energy/resources you have to input into the fuel when you grow and convert it. FC

There's something different about this one... FC

Alternative fuels do work and provide power just fine in jet engines...efficiency and envelope limits are the only issues. If you can burn it in a car, you can burn it in an aircraft. In fact, we already use a less efficient fuel in jets...kerosene. The reason it's used instead of gasoline is weight. The majority of the thrust of a modern airliner engine is not from the hot turbine, but from the spinning fans. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel I could go on. In short, there is nothing technical preventing the widespread adoption of alternative fuel for aviation. It's a matter of infrastructure and energy conversion efficiencies (ratio of energy derived from fuel vs energy and resource needed to make the fuel). FC