FastCargo

Eric, I've started improving the cockpit view...getting rid of the canopy braces and moving the 'porthole' closer to the pilot. Definite improvement all around... Nice work on those skins... Folks, this will be an interesting plane to try to use in combat... FC

http://combatace.com/topic/61336-hunter-gear-disappear/ This has been coming up about once a week. Folks, run a search on this website with the word 'hunter' and you'll find the solution. FC

I have the book that web page references which is where I got most of my data. FC

I pretty much built it in the prototype form...assuming they would have rushed it to production as such. There are models and diagrams with it carrying the GAR-9, but that was a later Republic proposal after it had been cancelled. Such a redesign would have compromised the already small fuel capacity of the original F-103...so I stuck with the design as mocked up. Even if they had sorted out the engine issues, I don't think the F-103 in reality would have ever reached it's design speed, considering it was designed before the discovery of 'area rule'. You can clearly see where the F-105 got it's design cues from though...and the F-105 was fast as hell, without the need for a flush canopy. FC

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

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