FastCargo

Sure enough. What I really need right now is someone (a squid type) to give me a probable deck arrangement for concurrent ops. Then Eric, you can tell me how you would like the mix of aircraft and where (and as an aside, if you want any thing like different arrangements of pods, drop tanks, canopies, etc). Then someone with deck crew and vehicle MAX files (and maybe pilot/ejection seat MAX files to boot). I can then create a 'weapon' that will fit on any Nimitz sized carrier and can be used in campaigns. Of course, it would only have Super Hornets on the deck... FC

The prototype you see here is one skin for all the models. However, making different skins wouldn't be that big a deal. My plan was to have one skin for the E and F models, and another skin for the G models. The problem, as with anything else, is that the more different skins you make, the more textures you have to load into memory. Obviously, I could remap the models to try to compress the amount of texture usage, but that starts getting into the 'more work than I want to do' phase... FC

Yes, this method would work in adding ships....but the ships, aircraft, deck crew, etc, would have to be one massive LOD file. In addition, you would have to add wake effects in the carrier's data.ini for the other 'ships'. FC

Okay, I've been playing with this a bit using the weapon method: The disadvantage is that you basically disarm the ship, you can't apply decals,lights (but can have lighted materials) or sounds. The advantage is that it's basically a permanent install in that you can prevent the 'missile' from ever firing, plus it can be used in campaigns (if you set up the arrangement right for concurrent launch and recovery ops). Ya take your your pick and takes your chances... FC

Uh yeah, the black helicopter crowd already has talked about this one... http://combatace.com/topic/61681-testing-testing-123/ FC

Maybe a better question I need to ask is when on those rare occasions carriers are doing concurrent launch and recovery ops, what does the deck look like... FC

Yep...and the way I've got it working, should be able to use it in campaigns too (once the 'takeoff in air' bug is fixed). As a benefit, if I keep the fantail clear, I can use less polygons... Now, anyone have any good deck crew MAX files...? FC

For EricJ, A test...and it works: FC

Looks good to me...keep on keeping on! I think the FM and cockpit are as good as they are going to get. I'll send you an update soon. FC

Well, I've done some testing and I've noticed the chaff and flare effects...specifically the flare effects are a little strange. As far as the nozzle goes, the only thing I've noticed is they seem to nick down a little early in military power (not real early, but a bit early) but schedules okay in AB. However, the strange thing I've noticed is that if there is more than one aircraft LOD, when it switches to the lower level LOD, the nozzle animation goes to full open (instantly), no matter what power setting. Doesn't matter which version of the exporter I use, the action is consistent. I noticed something similiar on my T-38A/F-5B models sometime ago, but never quite figured it out. And if I only use one model, the error doesn't occur. FC

That's not a fighter, that's a small bomber. I would find it hard to believe it could be a 9G airframe. FC

I also think that although some of the beefs about the sim have been around as long as the sim has, this overall thread would not have occured had the 2 major events happened (the 'prop' and 'takeoff' events). The 'prop' event I don't consider a bug as it did not affect stock models. The second event affected everything...and obviously caused the consternation here. I sometimes wonder if TK puts undue pressure on himself to get something out, which is maybe why he doesn't hire beta testers anymore because it would delay the product "unnecessarily". I'm hoping that Exp2 has proved 2 things: 1) Getting something out before Christmas won't really help if it has major bugs and 2) hire some beta testers! I think addons on their own can generate interest (ie sales) without having to be rushed...folks were very excited about having stock Lightnings and a mission editor. I finally think that there are folks who are willing to be beta testers for free...but TK needs a boilerplate NDA with them. Heavily limit their number, and strict instructions that finding bugs (not desired features) in the stock product is the priority...with classifications of the bugs from 'show stopper' to 'fix later' intersecting with 'hard' to 'easy' to fix. I also think moderate 'mod' beta testing should be encouraged, but not to the point of delaying a release, but maybe at least determining there is a problem. I think folks would have been a lot more accepting of the 'prop' issue had they known about it...a statement at release saying something like 'New shaders may cause incompabilities with older transparencies' would be sufficient. I think that TK should have just let the 'prop' bug go unfixed for a little longer after he determined the issue verses rushing out a patch that broke something significant. Beta testing can be an exercise in frustration, simply because the constant urge to fix EVERYTHING that is brought up can indefinitely delay a release (ie income). The trick is to note what's important, and what can be put off until later. You will ALWAYS have folks who bitch about this bug or that bug...the trick is to fix the stuff that most everyone will bitch about vs the stuff very few will care about. FC

Folks, its real simple. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The best way to get change is to vote with your money. If the last Expansion Pack makes you say "Never Again" then don't buy anything more and walk away. Talk is cheap (especially on the internet). You want something different, put your money where your keyboard is and invest in something else. There are plenty of other options. FC

Well, I've been testing out the F-103A acceleration and climb times, and she's pretty close. The projected time to climb was 7.1 minutes at Mach 3 at 60k. Currently, the model does the same numbers at 7.5 minutes. In the B-70 book, the F-103's Combat Radius is given as 450 miles...I thought I read somewhere else that it was closer to 220 miles. I did read in the F-103 Standard Aircraft Characteristics (official USAF docs) that the 'Mission Time' was expected to be 0.2 hours...or about 12 minutes! Considering that would be 7 minutes to altitude for 5 minutes of air combat time, that sounds about right...at Mach 3, you'd cover the combat radius in 15 minutes (450 NM) or just under 8 minutes (220 miles). Also, the fuel usage is horrendous, but not unexpected. You drain the external tanks just about the time you hit Mach 3 and 60k, so the timing works too. The F-103A will be a 'point' interceptor...emphasis on 'point'. After the initial blow by and turnaround (assuming the target is at 1.34 Mach and 40k feet), you pretty much get one pass and you're out of gas. FC

Not sure. I will tell you Exp 2 works just fine on a standalone install of SF2E...even on a netbook...doing my testing of the F-103 on it... FC

I'm so bright, I gotta wear shades... FC

Well, I'm wondering also what do other flight sims do with their 3d objects that the LOD format can't do. For instance, I know that the LOD format does not support specular mapping. Also, damage textures aren't bump mapped. I guess another way to ask is that could 3d object rendering be tweaked to modern standards (like was done with bump mapping) which makes older 3d formats easier to support and yet build a whole new terrain engine? I'm pretty sure even our terrain gurus would like a new terrain engine... FC

Remember folks that anything TK does is calculated to have a positive cost to benefit ratio. In other words, the potential profit made from it will meet or exceed the cost of doing it. There may be a bunch of folks who run modded installs, but there may also be bunches of folks who run plain old stock installs...it's an unknown factor that TK can't even tell us because he doesn't even know. Anyway, if he does a totally new terrain engine, how many old terrains will be 'broken' by it...just imagine the howls then (note what happened on the prop 'shadow' issue). Or if you want to keep the old terrains available, now you have to have 2 render subsets. Just how much time and money will that cost...and will it be made up in new sales? This is why multiplayer is such a low priority I think. TW games are meant for those to be able to jump in and spend just a few minutes to learn to play, and a few minutes to get to play. To get full enjoyment out of a multiplayer flight sim, you have to have time to play, longer stretches to plan and prep for something other than 'airquake' and usually a dedicated team you fly for. How many folks have that kind of time in the TW world? Is it enough to invest in a robust MP setup? Will you make enough money to pay for it? Again, I don't know the answer to these questions...I'm not the one paying the bills. FC

Nice stuff Eric! Periscope down: Periscope up: FC

Brian, Heh...it looks like a sequence of: 1. (Dad) - Here's what I'm going to demo... 2. (Daughter) - Oh there he goes... 3. (Daughter) - Yep, he missed the basket again... FC

Darn you Caesar, there you go with the voice of reason...and I wanted to start a flame war... Though I did get a capabilities brief from the USAF liaison to LockMart on the F-35, JSF_Aggie is the man in the know. But I'm pretty sure there's a bunch he can't talk about either. I will say that anyone who thinks the F-35 is a piece of FOD is very misinformed...possibly by design. FC

Holy crap moment?? You are kidding, right? A full weight 172 might weigh as much as a small sedan and is basically a crushable beer can. I could do more damage in a minivan. Also, a Cessna doesn't do anything quickly. JM's assessment is correct...they shadowed him and let him land. Why waste the ammo. People crack me up. FC

And yet this airplane makes you say WOW? http://combatace.com/topic/60193-republic-xf-84h-thunderscreech/ The F-103 design was designed for one thing...to go very fast in a straight line. There is no doubt of its purpose just by looking at it. It was also to have pioneered several concepts, including a dual cycle turbojet/ramjet, capsule cockpit/ejection system, speedbrakes that also did double duty as an engine nozzle, 'tiperons' and, oh yeah, speeds up to Mach 4...in the mid 1950s...not even 10 years after officially breaking Mach 1. It was not a kludge, but a very specific design for a very specific goal. Though it may not have ever hit its planned performance numbers, the basic design was in fact sound. As I said before, look VERY closely at the F-105...you will note the strong family resemblance in size, overall body shape, and general wing/planform layout. And the F-105 was indeed fast...especially down low. Just because a design is simple does not mean it is wrong. Simplicity can denote elegance...clean, smooth lines. However, because the goal of going fast was the priority, the compromises to do so in the design meant that it probably would have been fairly ineffective as an actual interceptor due to things like visibility, range, possible reliability issues. FC

Hmmm...now this is interesting. Since I'm on this netbook every other night while me and my wife switch off hospital sitting duties, doing any work on my SF2 stuff has been problematic. Until today...for the hell of it I installed SF2 and patched it up. The result...it actually not only runs, but runs smooth with all graphics turned to low (except for resolution). It looks like crap, but runs more than well enough for ini editing..perfect for my FM work! This will help the F-103 come along that much faster (as well as the F-108 and CF-105)... FC

Well, originally, I actually had a working periscope. The external model would animate a hollow tube that you could see through. However, I found that it was VERY difficult to actually fly that way. I hit upon the solution while doing some other experiments and its actually pretty simple. I'll be able to show you a screenshot in action when I get back to my computer tommorrow. FC