FastCargo

First, there is no MF F-102. There is a Razbam F-102, a Veltro2k F-102, and the MF F-106. Second, up until Expansion Pack 2, each weapon station required it's own animation slot. That means for something like the F-22, you could need up to 6 separate hardcoded animations (2 inner, 2 outer, 2 intake). And lord help you if the same weapon bay required multiple separate weapon station entries because the same weapons bay now requires an animation entry for each of those weapon stations. An example would be an F-22 bay needing large enough ini entries to fit a 1000 lb JDAM, but a separate weapon station entry for the same bay to fit AIM-120s...to avoid a situation like a Phoenix missile getting put in there. Anyway, if you didn't know this, you would get strange visuals with something like the F-35 (which I'm pretty sure I made work unless someone screwed with it), weapons firing through the bays, that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure I made Veltro's F-102 work as well...again, unless someone screwed with it. This may have changed in Expansion Pack 2 with this line: What TK has said this line means is that any weapon station that is in this weapon group will use this animation. In effect, it solves the problem of having multiple weapon stations using the same animation in that now, they should work properly. I have not tried this myself yet to verify that it works. One other thing...if you want your missile to drop, you probably need this line changed in its data.ini: In addition, if you want it to drop, you may need to increase the BoosterStart time. FC

Well, there are several sides to this story about the patches. First, is it important in the overall scheme of things? Of course not, ultimately, it's just a computer game that doesn't cost a whole lot of money to buy, and doesn't make a whole lot of money for it's creator. I've met TK and DanW in person, had them over for pizza and beer...believe me, they aren't A) getting rich or B) out to screw folks...they're normal folks like you and me, and like you and me can make mistakes. After working in multi-million dollar simulators that just focus on one aircraft, with no combat AI (or significant civilian AI) and still lamenting on how they don't act like the real thing, any available sim you can buy will be a pale shadow...period. Having said that, the last patch strikes me as a little concerning. Some of the other bugs that were in the previous packs/patches which were significant, but could have been overlooked due to testing only with stock installs (I don't hang around to watch AI land aircraft unless I'm doing testing in which case I could just build a mission that only has aircraft on final to make sure they land correctly). However, this patch's 'Start in the air' bug seems like something that should have gotten noticed right away in initial testing. There's a very real possibility of TK having to issue 3 patches in the space of less than 1 month due to multi bug fixing, with only one of patches dealing with specific 3rd party mod support (the shadow bug). It seems to me that the amount of extra work may steer TK toward the rehiring of beta testers in order to avoid this sort of thing from happening again. I know I would be concerned about my product if I'm having to jam out 3 fixes in 3 weeks. Now, there may be specific concerns TK has about hiring beta testers (including monetary or legal issues). However, those concerns may be outweighed by the perception of QC slipping...but I'm not the one running what is still ultimately, a business. Is it a problem? Sure. Am I going to another sim? No...nothing out there at the moment has the balance between absolute fidelity and playability (along with modability and selection of aircraft) that TK sims have. Anything else you hear about...until the official release, it's all vaporware. FC

File Name: B-70 Valkyrie Beta (Version 0.97) File Submitter: FastCargo File Submitted: 20 December 2010 File Category: SF2 Series Add On Aircraft B-70 Valkyrie (Beta) by FastCargo and friends. ********************** Version 0.97 *********************** (Note, this release includes the XB-70 beta released in November 2010) SF2 Version for Dec 2010 Patch. Models, some decals, most ini adaptions by FastCargo Textures and most decals by Sundowner Dyess AFB serial numbers by Dave from B-1B Redux 3D Rocket Effects by Lexx_Luthor (Lord of the Analog) B-1B Cockpit by Dels Engine Effects by Deuces, Fubar512 Any errors are mine... Package contains: XB-70 aircraft in prototype markings for AV/1 and AV/2. B-70A aircraft in 28BMS and 62BMS markings RS-70B aircraft in 337BMS markings B-70C aircraft in 9BS markings High Resolution versions of the textures and bump maps Original Readmes This readme Notes: This release is a beta, and as such, is somewhat incomplete. The cockpit is from the B-1B, and there are no damage textures. However, almost all other features of a full release have been included. Aircraft include: XB-70 - The original research aircraft in it's actual configuration...not really set up for warfighting. However, this set also includes semi fictional versions of operational aircraft: B-70A - This is most probable version of the Valkyrie that would exist had it gone into production. It is done in 2 paint schemes, the high altitude anti-flash white, and a version painted in an odd silver coating designed to reduce the IR signature (as proposed by the USAF). This version also includes the wing pylons for the Skybolt ALBM, and projected pylons for the smaller nuclear gravity weapons available at the time. RS-70B - Proposed version of the Valkyrie in an attempt to save it from the budget axe. Similiar to the B-70A in capability, but with additional reconnaissance ability similiar to SR-71. This is simulated by an internal camera window taking the location of the forward weapons bay. I projected that the RS-70B would come into existence during the late part of the Vietnam war, using the camera bay to carry the targeting laser, and dropping PGMs since conventional bombing at 80000 feet and Mach 3 would be very inaccurate. As a result, the first LGB drops in Vietnam are done by the RS-70B, not the F-4. B-70C - Completely fictional version of the Valkyrie. In the history where the Valkyrie was produced, most of the B-52 fleet was retired very soon after the Vietnam War, only the G and H models remained to carry the AGM-86B cruise missile. The B-1 was never proposed, with the B-70A being the main gravity nuke delivery system and the RS-70B being the PGM bomber. The F-111 and FB-111 remained as the medium range, low altitude conventional and nuclear penetrator. The B-2 was designed at the outset to be a low altitude penetrator, avoiding the costly redesign the actual B-2 went through, bringing unit cost down. As it was, the B-70 and RS-70 were expected to be retired at the beginning of the 1990s as high altitude, high speed SAM systems became more and more lethal. However, after Desert Storm, the lesson was learned that big, long range SAM systems are vulnerable and expensive, but anyone can have AAA...so the doctrine was adjusted for more medium/high altitude operations with PGMs. So all Valkyries underwent a modernization to the B-70C standard, with the ability to carry all PGMs, including the JDAM, JSOW, JASSM for employment in regional conflicts. There are a few bugs that we haven't been able to solve and may not be solvable due to simulation limitations. The main one is the AI will not take advantage of the high speed and altitude capabilities of the aircraft. Even if you create an actual mission with waypoints dictating altitudes and speeds, it will not fly those parameters (tends to fly a maximum of Mach 1.7). We are still working to squash the remaining issues...and one day we will have a proper cockpit for this machine. This is a long range aircraft, you can hit a few of the 'walls' on several of the stock maps so give yourself plenty of turning room when planning your flight. Have fun...report any crippling bugs (except trying to use it in SFP1/WOV/WOE/WOI...you're on your own) in the release thread at CA. FC 20 Dec 10 Click here to download this file

Is everyone done freaking out? Okay, now that someone around here has done some troubleshooting, I can tell you what is happening, and for you custom mission makers, how to fix it. First, carrier missions can still work normally...the included CARRIER_TAKEOFF single mission works normally, the aircraft starts on the 'pult. The solution I will provide will work on custom single missions, or missions you save with the editor, but you need Notepad. Make your mission, then go into Notepad with it and look for this line: Change it to: Save. The mission will now start on the runway...or catapult. I tried this with all the sims (stock only, haven't tried this yet with a custom aircraft or install) and the solution worked everytime. Now, obviously this won't work for campaigns, or missions created on the fly. But it will allow you to fly those single missions you have painstakingly created. More importantly, it can help TK narrow down what's causing it and fix it. I agree he does need beta testers, and I'm really curious why he isn't using some. FC PS For the hell of it, I did it in reverse. I took a mission that was working (CARRIER_TAKEOFF), and broke it by putting AdjustStartPosition to TRUE. So it's that variable. I've relayed the info to TK as well.

Interesting...very interesting... FC

Jarhead! Where ya been man?!?! FC

Really? Exactly WHICH value did you mess with? From what I see here, the 'pop' is already setup (ini is from SA-10 download). You probably messed with the BoosterStart value...which tells the sim when to start the rocket motor. In your case, about 1/2 a second AFTER the missile is released from the rail...not a good idea. If you want to increase the distance before the sustainer cuts in, adjust the BoosterDuration number. FC

Start thinking about which carrier you want to use and the typical arrangement you want... FC

Just to let you know, the 6k x 6k terrain works right out of the gate...didn't have to do anything to use it. Obviously it's unfinished, but the basics are there. For those inclined, this may be the perfect terrain to play with our current and future Mach 3 players...anyone want to run with this? FC

Well, I believe Fubar512 is our resident SAM flight path guru (I think he did the work on the SA-10). For what you are trying to achieve, what you need to look at are the sections near the end of the data.ini entry. The sections start with Booster, Sustainer, and InFlight. Booster and Sustainer have their own duration, thrust and effects values. The Inflight effect as far as I know has never worked. So, you can get an idea of you need to do...have a very short, sharp Booster launch with no visual effect (the 'pop' from the tube), then adjust the Sustainer section to taste. FC

Eventually, when we have time and inclination, it'll be done, just not right now. FC

Well, that specific chart is the zero-lift drag curves for the various components of the F-103A projected in 0.1 Mach increments out to Mach 4. Basically, I started with the stock TW F-105 flight model and then ran extrapolations based on aerodynamic knowledge and some Kentucky windage... The chart is one of several sheets plotting out the various tables, extending them out to Mach 4, and/or 80000 feet. It's pretty interesting when you start plotting out values because you can get a feel of what the aircraft will do at various altitudes and Mach numbers. And I haven't even started playing with the Alpha tables yet... For this particular model, I'm working on getting it stable at Mach 3 with a reasonable time to speed and time to climb numbers, having it stable for takeoff and landing for the player and the AI, and having it fly 'flat' enough for typical bomber attack runs... FC

It sounds like you got an incomplete or corrupt download. I'd recommend a redownload and re-install. FC

I use OpenOffice... FC

Cool! Hmmm...if this works, EricJ, I think there might be a carrier full of Super Hornets in our future... FC

Diego, Thanks for the answers. If the plug doesn't try to rejoin with Alt-N, that's good. The main reason I was wondering about the max number is that in normal cat ops in the sim, say you have 4 cats (normal), after everyone launches, the number 5 guy in formation shows up at cat 1, then 6 at cat 2, etc, and cycle off again in a repeat. I'm wondering what happens with the plug at #5 (or wherever). Will anyone else in your flight past #4 be 'stuck' waiting for the #5 cat to clear? Also, I remember at one point experimenting with adding objects to a carrier as a weapon sitting on a rail that never fires. I did get it to work, but obviously it would only work for a ship that was unarmed (since ships can't have multiple types of missiles...ie all the same missile would be needed)... FC

No. FC

XRAY, check the B-70 release thread, you will find your answer there. FC

Diego, Some questions: 1. I'm assuming that this can only be used for scripted single missions? 2. I'm also assuming that the max number of aircraft you can have takeoff is 4, because number 5 is your plug. 3. Finally, if you Alt-N, number 5 in your flight (ie the plug) will try to show up at your next waypoint? FC

I've snow skied behind a truck before... FC

XRAY, Why would you not want a co-pilot...can't fly without one! :) Anyway, in the Component section, just assign him to a Component that has VisibleFromCockpit=FALSE in it's entry. Lexx, Actually, I used them for both the ALBM and SRAM, I like the effect and they look pretty good until the missile gets REALLY fast (on the order of a kilometer per second). I also figured that the B-70 probably can't do Mach 3 with 2 ballistic missiles hanging on its wings so I figured they would launch at a slower speed, then the bomber would speed up to Mach 3. FC

There is no weapons pack that includes it. It's included in the B-70 download. FC

I would hope so...heck, they use the same tech in roller coasters for crying out loud.... FC

From what I understand, the project is dead anyway. Unless Russia grants the company an export license, it'll stay a prototype...if it is ever completed. FC

Not at the present time...the 4 for 1 deal was last year. TK may offer it again at some point. FC