Jump to content

FastCargo

ADMINISTRATOR
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by FastCargo

  4. Posted

    I've got the following:

     

    SF2

    SF2V

    SF2E

    SF2E + Exp 2

    SF2I

    SF2I + Exp 1

    SF2NA

    SF2 Merged (all of the above)

     

    Basically, I run 8 discrete installs....the idea is that I can test my mods in any enviroment to see what works or doesn't.

     

    What I did was run each install separately in it's own directory, then copied the directories (not the mod directories, but the actual program directories). I then uninstalled all of them, then reinstalled a Merged setup under SF2 Merged as the directory. Then ran each exe to build the mod directories.

     

    Within each mod directory, I altered the Version.ini to only show TRUE for the specific exe files needed, then made the Version.ini read only.

     

    Here's the weird thing...if I run (say the SF2V) the standalone exe, pointing at the default mod directory, it only shows the stuff available to a stand alone version of SF2V. If I run the merged version of the SF2V exe, pointing at the same mod directory, it shows ALL of the available stuff in a merged install, overriding the Version.ini file.

     

    Don't know why it works, but it does. And doing a standard copy/rename exe for the various exes (standalone or merged) results in mod install with the proper objects/terrains available.

     

    FC

  5. Posted

    Looking at it from the current DCS 3rd party developer's perspective, it seems many want to get familiar with developing for the DCS engine by working their way up from trainers. Taking on the most complex aircraft possible such as an F-15E, F-14D, or F-22 leads to years of no profits in the hope of scoring the big cash with a brilliant final release. If the lessons (and code?) learned from each project can be used as building blocks for the next level, you could get to the high end types almost as fast while getting a chance for profits releasing the basic and intermediate complexity aircraft. A T-38 to F-5 to F-16A to F-16C type of progression could make a lot of sense if plenty of people would buy the T-38 and/or F-5.

     

    Here's the thing...you are burning money building a non-combat aircraft for an air combat sim. You can just as easily learn how to move up to more complex aircraft by building an earlier year vintage aircraft that people want. Oh, like an F-5, or F-105, A-4, A-7, A-6.

     

    And DCS filling the spot left by MSFS? I'll believe that when I start seeing airliners being released and ultra detailed terrains with awesome airports.

     

    I want DCS to succeed...but some of the things I'm seeing have me concerned.

     

    FC

  7. Posted

    I always thought training in a trainer in a virtual air force to be kind of redundant.

     

    What I mean is this...in a simulated environment, everything is controlled. The idea is to use the simulator to get you up to speed in procedures and maneuvers that cannot be practiced in the aircraft (losing an engine on takeoff for example).

     

    But for normal procedures, it doesn't matter how much you practice in the simulator...you get on to the 'line' and a whole bunch of new stimuli are competing for your attention. In the real world, these real world training flights teach you to 'timeshare', to build that basic 'airmanship' that you carry onward from aircraft to aircraft.

     

    But assuming you're spending the jack on flight simulators for PCs, you probably already have as much basic airmanship as you are going to get in a simulated environment. Much better to spend your time getting up to speed on the specific aircraft you want to fly, and specific tactics your squadron/clan/troop/whatever wants you to learn.

     

    The only time I would spend on building a basic training program is if someone wants to learn who has no idea what military flying (or flying in general) is.

     

    FC

  9. Posted

    Yeah a T-38 not so much. Now an F-5!

     

    Yea, I don't understand this either.

     

    Obviously I have a personal interest...but it doesn't make sense from a financial point of view. FSX is about flyin', DCS is about shootin'. T-38s do a lot of the first, a little of the second. And there is already a decent one for FSX.

     

    You would think an F-5 would be a MUCH bigger draw. So many nations have had them at one point or another, you'd be casting a pretty wide net.

     

    FC

  10. Posted

    I guess I'm missing something...the original Falcon 4.0 source code was never legally released, correct? (Other than to Lead Pursuit for F4:AF) And everything since then is based off that non-legal code?

     

    Doesn't that mean that nobody really owns the rights (other than Lead Pursuit) and can't compel anyone to do anything?

     

    FC

  11. Posted

    The Tsar tank didn't do that well in its first (and only) field trial.

     

    http://www.landships.freeservers.com/lebedenko_info.htm

     

    The vehicle moved well over some firm ground, crashed a tree, but then went into a soft patch, where the small double wheel got stuck in a ditch. Soon it was obvious that the engines were to small, as they were unable to free the rear double wheel.

     

    The Lebedenko stood there, bogged down, for the rest of the war, but was finally scrapped in 1923.

     

    FC

  24. Posted

    Okay, well, you can do the method I mentioned above, just use a FakePilot instead of a real pilot...add an entry in the data.ini like this:

     

    [ParkedAnimationOnly]

    SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT

    Position=0.0,0.0,0.0

    PilotModelName=FakePilot

    CanopyAnimationID=x

     

    Now, a second method would be to add the following lines to the [MissionData] section of the data.ini:

    CarrierBased=TRUE

    CarrierParkSpan=xx.xx

    CarrierParkAnimationID=x

     

    I'm assuming what this does is add a second animation for when the aircraft is parked on the carrier deck. I don't know if this animation is added if the aircraft is parked on land.

     

    FC

  25. Posted

    1) Yes, just need a cockpit entry for each animation you want to activate on the ground. My Northrop 2 seaters work like that.

     

    [studentPilot]

    SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT

    Position=0.0,2.730,0.954

    PilotModelName=MODusaf

    SeatModelName=NorthropSeat

    SeatPosition=0.0,2.730,0.954

    MinExtentPosition=-0.300,3.462,-0.041

    MaxExtentPosition= 0.300,2.107,1.136

    CanopyNodeName=FrontCanopyFrame

    CanopyAnimationID=8

    SeatID=1

     

    [Pilot]

    SystemType=PILOT_COCKPIT

    Position=0.0,1.19,1.05

    PilotModelName=MODusaf

    SeatModelName=NorthropSeat

    SeatPosition=0.0,1.19,1.05

    MinExtentPosition=-0.300, 1.792,1.165

    MaxExtentPosition= 0.300, 0.842,0.023

    CanopyNodeName=RearCanopyFrame

    CanopyAnimationID=9

    SeatID=2

     

    You could use a FakePilot for one of the entries.

     

    2) There's a CarrierBased=TRUE/FALSE in the data.ini. I think that's the entry you need to be TRUE in order to place it on a carrier at all. Otherwise, there isn't any difference I don't think.

     

    FC

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

  I accept